Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BEARSDEN AND MILNGAVIE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisonal Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Bearsden and Milngavie District Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

CUMNOCK AND DOON VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

DUNFERMLINE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Dunfermline District Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

CHURCHES AND UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Churches and Universities (Scotland) Widows' and Orphans' Fund (Amendment); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

PETERHEAD HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary: Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Peterhead Harbours; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

Oral Answers to Questions — Transport

British Transport Docks Board

Mr. Viggers: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on the capital reconstruction of the British Transport Docks Board.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): The forthcoming Transport Bill will include legislation to introduce private capital into the board's undertaking. That will reconstitute the board and enable me to sell shares. It will also free the business from public sector constraints.

Mr. Viggers: Is it not encouraging that the board, which has a good record in commercial terms, has welcomed the Government's proposals? What effect does my right hon. Friend think the capital reconstruction will have in terms of investment by private industry?

Mr. Fowler: One of the major effects will be that the new company will be free from public sector restraints on investment. The board greatly welcomes that, and I think that it will do extremely well in the private sector.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Does the Minister agree that the British Transport Docks Board has been successful ever since it was set up? Is he aware that even in times of difficulty it has shown profitability and that it has been a successful part of public enterprise? Is he further aware that at this time it does not want meddling interference from people who know nothing about the industry?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has just made an extremely good case for the policy the Government are adopting. We are to take away the meddling interference in the board's activities. For the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave, the board should be responsible for its future.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister confirm that in the privatisation of the British Transport Docks Board the majority of shares will not be sold to the private sector? If that is so, will the management board of the new company have greater control, with no interference by the Government?

Mr. Fowler: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) back to the Opposition Front Bench. The vital issue in this matter is where the control rests. The Government will retain a 51 per cent. stake, but the control of the company will remain in the private sector.

Private Bus Operators (Costs)

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received on the relative operating costs of private bus operators and the National Bus Company.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have not received representations, but I have read with interest a report published last week by the Transport and Road Research


Laboratory called "The Economics of Stage Carriage Operation by Private Bus and Coach Companies". It finds that the average fare on services run by private companies in two traffic areas was 25 per cent. less than that charged by the National Bus Company on its services.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that reflects poorly on the National Bus Company and that it bodes ill for the future of the NBC if it fails to act to cut costs and improve efficiency? Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the Transport Act, which gives new opportunities to private bus companies, will result in even lower relative fares for people travelling on buses?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend has already set a tight financial limit for the National Bus Company, and he proposes to agree soon a financial target and performance standards. The Transport Act 1980 will enable any operator, public or private, who can provide an efficient service to the public to thrive and expand his services.

Mr. Newens: How can the NBC possibly achieve the low cost that is achieved by private operators, as long as it continues to provide many services on unremunerative routes? Is the hon. and learnt d Gentleman recommending that this social service by the National Bus Company should be cut?

Mr. Clarke: The NBC received £37 million in 1979 for running unremunerative services. The comparison made by the TRRL was between services run by private companies receiving no subsidy and those run by the NBC receiving subsidy. Had the NBC not received any subsidy, its fares would have been about 40 per cent. higher.

Railways (Investment)

Mr. Snape: asked the Minister of Transport what is his policy towards future investment in the railways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Minister of Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the rail investment programme.

Mr. Fowler: I meet the chairman regularly to discuss a range of subjects, including investment. We have, in fact, made no cuts in the investment ceiling which the last Government judged adequate for the British Railways Board and which this year stands at £325 million.

Mr. Snape: Is the Minister proud of the fact that he presides over a railway system with the highest fares, the worst level of wages and the lowest level of investment in West Europe? Is it not time that he granted the British Railways Board and the railway unions the 30 per cent. increase in investment for which they have for so long and so rightly campaigned?

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept anything of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The external finance limit and the investment that we have set for British Rail are fair. However, I have announced today that, within the present external finance limit, the passenger grant ceiling has been it creased by £23 million. That means that the passenger grant ceiling for 1981 will be £678 million. That is a direct grant from the Government to the passenger railways. The money is earmarked for passenger services. I hope that the effect will be that the present level of fares will be held for the next 12 months.

Mr. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has struck the right balance on financial assistance to British Rail? If he were to go further at this stage, it would greatly increase the public sector borrowing requirement, put pressure on interest and exchange rates and further deflate the economy, with bad effects on British Rail.

Mr. Fowler: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We have sought to recognise the special difficulties that British Rail has had during the past two years. We increased the external finance limit last year, and the external finance limit for the coming year is £920 million. A vast amount of money is going into direct support for passenger services. The support going from the taxpayer and the ratepayer to passenger services is running at £2 million a day.

Mr. Booth: If it is not the Minister's intention to cut British Rail's investment programme, why has he refused to approve every investment proposal that British Rail has put before him since May of this year? Is British Rail still awaiting his approval for the electrification of the rail network in East Anglia, the renewal of signalling in the west of England, the EMUs, the locomotive and freight wagon rolling programmes and the introduction of a number of advanced passenger trains?

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman has mixed up a number of matters in that supplementary question. First and foremost, he must accept that our investment ceiling is the same as the investment ceiling that we inherited from the Labour Government, of which he was a leading member. The main electrification proposals have just arrived. There are 95 HSTs being built or approved, and there is an existing rolling programme of 220 EMUs. Considerable resources are being devoted to the railways. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would recognise with some consistency what happened under the Labour Government.

Mr. Booth: Wilt the Minister answer the question? What investment proposals from British Rail has he approved since May of this year?

Mr. Fowler: As I have just said, we are continuing with the rolling programme of 220 EMUs. We have given approval for 25 freight locomotives. We have received the electrification proposals literally in the last few days, and we shall respond to them, as I have already said. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that the investment ceiling being observed by the Government is the same as the investment ceiling that was set by the Labour Government. It begs all credibility if the right hon. Gentleman changes his position after only 18 months in Opposition. The laws of arithmetic do not change.

Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend call in the leaders of both British Rail and the trade unions and make it clear to them that before there can be any increase in the capital investment programme there will have to be substantial evidence of an improvement in productivity and efficiency? Will he also tell them that to the many commuters in Brentwood and Ongar who travel to and from London each day there is ample evidence of areas in which increased productivity and efficiency could be achieved?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right about improvements in the productivity and efficiency of British Rail. After all, that is what the British Railways Board is


trying to achieve. It is in the interests not only of the customer, who is the most important person in the debate, but of the railway industry that opportunities for improved efficiency are taken.

Mr. Russell Kerr: When discussing the investment plans of British Rail, will the Minister bear in mind the fearful and permanent economic damage caused by the ill-judged cuts of 20 yew's ago under Dr. Beeching as an object lesson to be avoided at all costs?

Mr. Fowler: I have made my position clear on Beeching-type cuts in rural services. The Government are not prepared to see such cuts take place again. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a warm welcome for the extra support that he has announced today for passengers within the same external finance limit? Does he accept also that it is nonsense for the Opposition to attack his investment programme when he is not only maintaining the level of investment that he inherited from the Labour Government but is increasing the amount of support? If the Opposition are truly concerned to improve the railways, should we not have a condemnation by the spokesman for the Opposition of any threat of industrial action by the unions, based on the present levels of investment?

Mr. Fowler: I hope that the advice of all in the House on the prospect of industrial action will be that the situation should be cooled. We should remember that industrial action can only harm the railways and their customers. I very much hope that that message will come from both sides of the House.
The external finance limit for the railways is tough but realistic and, as far as I know, it is accepted by the British Railways Board.

Railways (Diesel Units)

Mr. Straw: asked the Minister of Transport what funds he will make available to the British Railways Board to enable early replacement of the ageing diesel multiple unit fleets.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The railways board is working on possible replacement designs for its diesel multiple unit fleet. Investment priorities are, however, a matter for the board within its overall investment and finance limits.

Mr. Straw: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that rail passengers in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and many other areas outside Greater London are having to put up with travelling conditions that would cause a commuter strike if they were imposed on passengers in the London area? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman pay an official visit to the rail services of north Manchester and Lancashire to see for himself how bad the services are? Given the funds available to British Rail, how long will it be before the rolling stock that is being used, which is more than a quarter of a century old, is replaced?

Mr. Clarke: British Rail is at the moment spending money on refurbishing about 300 of its DMUs per year. It has not come to us with any proposals for investment in new DMUs, because it is still designing replacement vehicles. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that in the spring British Rail will be experimenting with a passenger service with a lightweight DMU design on the

Preston-Blackburn-Colne service. I shall certainly consider making a visit to the area to see that new vehicle in operation.

Mr. Gummer: When does British Rail expect to announce its decision on the experiments on the lightweight service in Eye? When will British Rail, in addition to its strictures on investment, publish some comparison of manning between European countries, so that we may know the truth?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend has visited and used the line in Mid-Suffolk where the new Leyland vehicle is being tried. We are following that experiment with as close an interest as is the board, because that line seems to offer great opportunities for cost-cutting and will enable rural services to be maintained at reasonable cost to the taxpayer.
There is a later question on the Order Paper on, international comparisons. They are difficult to make exactly. I agree that comparisons of productivity, manpower and other matters need to be made in addition to the statistics that are convenient to a campaign today.

Heavy Lorries

Mr. Rhodes James: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the timing of the Armitage committee report on heavy lorries.

Mr. Fowler: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) yesterday, the report has been published and copies are available in the Library. I should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to Sir Arthur and his team of assessors for the work that they have put into this independent inquiry. It will obviously take a little time for the Government to consider this wide-ranging report and its recommendations, but I shall make a statement on our views in due course.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the implications of the recommendations of the Armitage report go far beyond lorry weights and axle loads, important though they are? Is he further aware that they must, therefore, be viewed in the wider context of transport strategies, industrial needs and environmental considerations? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall have an opportunity to debate the report before any decision is announced?

Mr. Fowler: I gladly give that assurance. It is vital that we should have a debate on the Armitage report. The only proposal that we shall put forward in the Transport Bill — I think that it will meet with the approval of the House — is that concerning vehicle excise duty on heavier vehicles. The heaviest vehicles will be required to pay their full track cost.

Mr. Anderson: If the Minister is disposed in favour of accepting the representations made on behalf of the lorry lobby, will he make compensating benefits available to British Rail so that it can improve its freight attractions? For example, improved section 8 grants and other such benefits could be made available, which would ensure the existence of a viable rail freight system.

Mr. Fowler: It would do the hon. Gentleman quite a lot of good to read the report and the part on section 8 grants. The report has not been proposed, even remotely,


by the lorry lobby. It is an independent report. Those who have had anything to do with it and who have given evidence will pay tribute to that fact.

Sir Timothy Kitson: Given that a large number of jobs depend upon the implementation of some of those recommendations, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no delay in holding a debate and in bringing forward the necessary legislation?

Mr. Fowler: Obviously, that is a matter for my right hon Friend the Leader of the House to consider, but I hope that we shall be able to hold a debate on the Armitage report. It would be convenient to the House if such a debate were to be held within the next two months. That is the speediest progress that we can make. I agree with my hon. Friend's general point.

Mr. Penhaligon: For that debate, will the Minister provide statistics showing how much it would cost to build bypasses for all the rural villages and historical towns over the length and breadth of Britain? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that figures will be issued to equate the cost of that against the claimed savings in the Armitage report?

Mr. Fowler: I shall try to provide the maximum amount of information. This is not a matter of party dispute. The Armitage report refers to priority for bypasses, and that priority is very much a part of the Government's road-building programme.

Sir Anthony Royle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who live alongside the South Circular Road and other narrow roads are deeply concerned because such roads are already immersed in heavy lorries? Will he give careful thought to this issue before going ahead with the recommendations in the Armitage report, with the exception of increasing taxes on heavy lorries? Will my right Friend also give an assurance that he will first consult the House of Commons?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. That is why we thought it best to have an independent report and to follow that with a general debate in the House of Commons. That is a fair way to proceed. The proposals made by the Armitage report concern heavier lorries but not bigger lorries. That is an important distinction.

Mr. Booth: Will the Minister accept that I join him in paying that well-deserved compliment to Sir Arthur Armitage and his committee? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wrong to raise lorry weights without first introducing the road construction programme, an increase in rail freight facilities and the enforcement of lorry safeguards, which the Armitage report shows to be necessary?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of the fact that the Armitage committee is independent. His general point is that a package of proposals is involved. That is right. The House should have the opportunity to consider that package and to debate it.

Cyclists (Road Safety)

Mr. Garel-Jones: asked the Minister of Transport if he is planning to introduce measures that will improve road safety for cyclists.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have been taking a fresh look at the whole subject of cycling in order to decide how best to improve facilities and safety for cyclists, and we shall be publishing a consultation paper soon. Meanwhile, we have just carried out a pilot publicity compaign on cycling safety in East Anglia.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but does he recognise the importance of encouraging cycling and cyclists, given the need for energy conservation? Will he tell us more precisely when we can expect to see the consultation paper?

Mr. Clarke: For the reason that my hon. Friend has given, we recognise the importance of encouraging people to cycle. We are trying to produce some specific proposals to be included in the consultation paper. We hope that the consultation paper will be published some time in the new year.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that just as cyclists in other countries are helped, something should be done for cyclists in Britain? Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there should be proper cycle tracks by the side of every major road? Is he aware that thousands of cyclists use footpaths and endanger the lives and limbs of pedestrians because the Government have failed to give cyclists proper protection?

Mr. Clarke: This Government have taken more interest in cyclists than have any other Government for as long as anyone can remember. We are considering our proposals and we shall produce a paper. There is some limit to resources. Meanwhile, we are pressing on with the financing of experimental schemes in a number of cities. At present we are planning schemes in Bedford, Cambridge, Chelmsford, Chichester and York. Schemes are already in existence in Peterborough, Middlesbrough and Stevenage, which have been assisted by the Department.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: At the same time, will my hon. and learned Friend consider the need for improvements in safety for riders on horseback?

Mr. Clarke: That is a serious question. I am glad to say that I am in frequent correspondence with those who know more about horses than I. I intend to take note of their advice.

Mr. Speaker: That point is as much related to this question as it is to the next.

Traffic Offences (Totting-up System)

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his policy towards changes to the present system of totting-up for traffic offences.

Mr. Fowler: I intend to include provisions in the forthcoming Transport Bill, which will replace the present totting-up system with a system based on points. This change has been recommended by the review body which the Government set up last year and has been supported by the motoring organisations and many others. I believe that it will be generally welcomed as a significant reform of our motoring laws in line with the commitment I made in Opposition.

Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent reply. Is he aware that he will be supported by


many millions of motorists? Will he assure me that there will be an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to debate the points allocated to each specific penalty?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, I give that assurance. The points system will be based on a distinction between the seriousness of the offence or otherwise. For example, reckless driving might appear at one end, and construction and use regulations at the other. There will be a debate on the exact total that each offence should be given.

Mr. Waller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the idea of extending a fixed-penalty system to cover a wider range of road traffic offences has been delayed, not dropped?

Mr. Fowler: An extension of the fixed-penalty system—I refer to the ticket system as opposed to on-the-spot fines—is still being considered by the working party, which includes the Department of Transport and the Home Office. As we made such rapid progress on totting up, we thought it right to make the swiftest progress possible on totting-up legislation.

British Rail Subsidiaries

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the contribution made to British Rail finances over the last five years by British Rail subsidiaries.

Mr. Fowler: The subsidiaries taken altogether have not made a contribution to British Rail finances over the last five years, because profits and depreciation, even including money from non-operational property, have not matched investment in the businesses. The net cash outflow from the board over the period 1975 to 1979 was about £11·6 million.
With permission, I will arrange for a table showing the figures year by year for each business to be circulated in the Official Report.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Does not that answer provide added reason for encouraging private investment in areas that are inappropriate for nationalised industries? Can my right hon. Friend give any guidance on the method and timing, bearing in mind that my hon. Friends and I believe that he should take that action—and the sooner the better?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The provisions, which will involve the hotel business, Sealink,

Net Cash Flow Before Interest from Subsidiary Activities to the Board



£ million at outturn prices



1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Total


Sealink UK Ltd
(10·3)
(14·6)
3·3
(11·7)
(16·9)
(49·6)


British Transport Hotels Ltd
nil
(0·6)
(0·6)
(2·6)
(2·9)
(6·7)


British Rail Hovercraft Ltd
(0·1)
(2·0)
(6·2)
(9·4)
(1·2)
(18·5)


Freightliners Ltd
—
—
—
nil
(2·0)
(2·0)


British Rail Engineering Ltd
0·5
0·4
0·6
0·1
1·0
2·6


Transportation Systems Market Research Ltd (Transmark)
nil
nil
0·3
0·3
0·3
0·9


British Transport Advertising Ltd
1·3
1·8
2·0
2·6
3·4
11·1


Total
(8·6)
(15·0)
(0·6)
(20·7)
(18·3)
(63·2)


Non-operational property holdings
12·0
14·2
8·2
5·7
11·5
51·6


All figures are taken from the British Railways Board's published reports and accounts for the years 1975 to 1979.

Footnotes:

hovercraft and non-operational property, will be included in the Transport Bill, which I hope will be published shortly.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Minister agree that he should think again about the disposal of Sealink, which made a £13 million profit last year, in view of the greedy interest expressed by the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden), whose company has set up a private monopoly and who has made it clear by statements issued on the subject that he is not interested in the socially necessary ferry services operated by British Rail?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should wait for the proposals. They will enable British Rail to sell the controlling part of Sealink. It will be for the board to consider offers, not only from European Ferries Ltd. but from other organisations and institutions. As regards the general policy, I am sure that Sealink will do much better in the private sector.

Sir David Price: In order the better to encourage the subsidiaries of British Rail to conduct joint ventures with private enterprise, will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Treasury to ensure that when the joint ventures take place the part of the capital that comes from private enterprise will not be debited against the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Fowler: One of the aims is to remove the subsidiary companies from the necessary public sector restraints. My hon. Friend should wait for the detail of the Bill. He will then see the method that we intend to use.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that many people involved in the railway industry see the denial of essential investment in British Rail as a means of exerting pressure on it to sell profitable assets, such as Sealink, to the private sector? Is he further aware that if Sealink and Townsend Thoresen Car Ferries Ltd., which has made a knock-down offer for Sealink, are put together, they will control over 70 per cent. of the market? Is that the Conservatives' policy for private competition?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I say. The board must decide on the offers. Obviously, European Ferries will not be the only organisation to make offers. Secondly, the Opposition should recognise that the British Rail Board supports what we are doing and does not oppose it.

The following is the table:

1. Sealink has been treated as a subsidiary throughout although it did not formally become one until 1 January 1979.


2.The BTH figures are net of rail catering.


3. Freightliners became a wholly owned subsidiary of BRB on 4 August 1978 (prevciously during this period they were majority owned by NFC). Income and expenditure attributable to VRB in 1978 and 1979 are included.


4. BREL figures take accout only of surplus on work for external clients. Work for the board is undertaken at cost. No allowance is made for depreciation and investment in respect of work for external clients as the figures cannot be broken down in this way.

Motorway Service Areas

Mr. Richard Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport what have been the receipts to date from the sale of motorway service areas.

Mr. Fowler: I have agreed terms with the Rank Organisation, Granada, Trusthouse Forte and Imperial Foods for them to purchase new 50-year leases of the motorway service areas that they currently operate. This accounts for three-quarters of the English MSAs. I have received offers for several of the others and am expecting offers for the remainder. Overall, the proceeds of the sale should amount to around £50 million, with the Exchequer benefiting by well over £40 million in the current financial year.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for that answer. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety about the provision of a 24-hour service? Will he confirm that the 24-hour service will continue?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, I can confirm that the 24-hour fuel and refreshment service will continue. We have made that a condition.

Mr. Weetch: Is the Minister aware that over the years consumers have been ripped off in these service areas at one time or another? What will he do to ensure competition in these areas? What will he do to ensure that high prices will not be brought about purely as a result of monopoly leasing?

Mr. Fowler: One of the aims is to ensure that there is competition between the motorway service areas. We are seeking to reform the position described by the hon. Gentleman. We shall enable the motorway service areas, for the first time, to advertise their names on the motorways. In various other ways competition will be brought into play. If the hon. Gentleman cares to go up the M, for example, he will see that petrol prices have come down to a level that is closer to that which applies off the motorway.

Mr. Hill: I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House. On the M3 and M27, petrol prices for the unfortunate motorist who happens to run out of petrol are about 20p per gallon more than anywhere else. How will my right hon. Friend safeguard the motorist against being milked?

Mr. Fowler: That position was made possible under the old system of rentals charged to the motorway service areas. I do not know the position on the M3, but I know what happens on the M1, where petrol prices have come down to a level that is much nearer to that which applies in garages off the motorway.

Mr. Cryer: Without some form of inspection of the new leased areas, how will the Minister ensure that reasonable conditions for the motorist prevail? Will he assure the House that there will be no reduction of facilities and that alcoholic drinks will not be available to bring about death and danger? What does he intend to do about the Blennerhassett report?

Mr. Fowler: About five questions were wrapped up in that one. I give an assurance that there is no question of alcohol being served at the motorway service areas. The conditions are laid out in the leases. It is better for the consumer to have more competition between the motorway service areas than to have a system of Government inspection as proposed by the Prior report.

Local Bus Services

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Minister of Transport what sum of money he has earmarked as a cash incentive to local authorities for the promotion of private enterprise local bus services.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: None. The transport supplementary grant settlement, which will be announced next week, will include provision for revenue support which counties will be able to use to promote local bus services of all kinds.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that Devon, Herefordshire, Norfolk and Worcester have been offered money—indeed, several hundred thousand pounds? Is there not a danger that that money could be used simply to purchase free buses for private enterprise operators?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has made two mistakes. First, Hereford and Worcester are now the same county. Secondly, no such money has been offered for the purpose that he describes. The counties, I am glad to say, are contemplating trial areas. Some counties have approached us about the possibility of extra revenue support to meet the transitional costs of their trial areas. That revenue support for those counties, as for any others, will be available to the operators that are best placed to provide a service to the passengers, regardless of whether they are in the public or the private sector.

Heavy Goods Vehicle Testing Stations

Sir David Price: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement explaining the reasons for the view he expressed in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Eastleigh,Official Report,

Mr. Fowler: I believe that there is substantial room for improvement in the present system to provide a service better geared to operators' real needs. Under proper controls, testing can continue to be carried out to high standards outside the Civil Service. I hope to propose legislation to enable this to be done in the next Session of Parliament. In the meantime, I shall be continuing discussions with the industry on the details of the new arrangements.

Sir David Price: Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend agree with the representations that have been made by road hauliers and individual garages in my constituency that heavy goods vehicle testing is not an appropriate


function for the competitive market? Does he accept that the stations must fulfil statutory functions objectively? Have they not been working well? For heaven's sake, let us leave well alone.

Mr. Fowler: The straight answer is that I do not agree. I believe that the new system will provide a better service to the customer, which is what the policy is all about. I know that the industry has expressed concern. That is why we have discussions with representatives of it. I sincerely hope that over the coming months we can meet the fears and concern that they have expressed.

Mr. Snape: Are not the proposals another example of the Minister's silly dogma? Are they not a recipe for even more unsafe lorries and for bribery and backhanders from various operators in the road haulage business? Will the right hon. Gentleman, for once, listen to the wise words of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who summed up the position correctly?

Mr. Fowler: I always listen to the wise words of my hon. Friend, but I do not happen to agree with them on this occasion. We have several months in which to look at the details. One of the things that we want to do is to improve the service to the road haulage industry—for example, by getting stations to open earlier and to open on Saturdays. That is what the policy is all about.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that road safety is particularly endangered at present by the failure adequately to grit roads in adverse weather conditions? Does he accept that it is his responsibility to put an end to this problem?

Mr. Fowler: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. I am to have talks with the county councils concerned.

Regional Highways Traffic Model

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Transport what is now his final estimate of the aggregate cost to public funds of the regional highways traffic model; and if he will publish in theOfficial Reportthe names of those responsible for initiating this project.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The cost of commissioned work on the regional highway traffic model project was £6·9 million. Inclusion of estimated costs for work by departmental staff and local authorities would increase that to about £8·2 million.
This project was commissioned in 1975 and announced by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), who was then Minister for Transport.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it might be salutary for the future if the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) and all those associated with him were invited to recompense the public purse for this appalling and totally ludicrous waste of money on a meaningless bureaucratic project?

Mr. Clarke: I gave the right hon. Member for Dudley, East notice that I would mention him today. I agree that he appears to have commissioned a singularly unsuccessful and very expensive project. At least, we have collected much valuable data. Following the advice of the Standing

Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, we are trying to make the best use of the data and trying at least to gain some advantage from this very expensive story.

Rail Services (London and the South East)

Mr. Dobson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to provide additional capital to improve rail services in London and the South-East.

Mr. Fowler: Almost a quarter of British Rail's investment programme is being devoted to London's commuter network, enabling major improvements to be made. The board decides its priorities within the investment ceiling, which, as I have already said, has not been reduced.

Mr. Dobson: As the Minister has not approved a capital application from British Rail since May of this year, does he accept as a plain fact that it is simply claptrap for him to talk about retaining or improving the services in the South-Eastern region unless the Government do their duty and provide public funds for capital investment?

Mr. Fowler: What the hon. Gentleman has said turns the true position on its head. He cannot have been listening to what I said. The Government are financing a rolling programme of 220 EMUs. The investment level that the Government are working to is exactly the same as the one that the last Labour Government worked to, updated in real terms.

Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from improving rail services, British Rail is planning to reduce the quality of service in the London suburbs? Does he agree that it does not make sense to propose to close down suburban stations in the evening—stations which are often unmanned in any event—and that this will produce minimal economies but cause the maximum of inconvenience?

Mr. Fowler: I have just been given the press notice from the board, which says:
The fall in demand and excess capacity together mean that, like any other business, the railway must take action to bring supply more into line with demand.
Clearly, that will affect passengers, and to that extent I regret it. But, like any other business, British Rail must live within its budget.

Mr. Pavitt: Following the last question, will the right hon. Gentleman at least examine the Broad Street-Richmond line, which serves my constituency, and find the small amount of cash necessary to keep the stations open after 7 o'clock at night? Is it not a scandal, in view of the great congestion of roads in North-West London, that this major line will be closed from 7 o'clock in the evening?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows that line. I shall look at the position, But I do not want to interfere with the management decisions of British Rail.

Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the short-haul commuter services provide a much-needed social service for many of my constituents? Will he press the British Railways Board to reconsider the way in which it proposes to deal with the matter, in view of the threat to the ordinary lifestyle of many of my constituents?

Mr. Fowler: There is a duty on the board, and I am not prepared to make promises about what I can achieve with the board on this matter when what it is saying is that it is seeking to match supply and demand. That is something that any business must do. I shall, of course, talk to the chairman about the position, but I must repeat that British Rail must live within its budget.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that the report of the Monopolies and Merges Commission on South-Eastern services made it clear that productivity improvements would not be enough to meet the problems of reducing services? If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the demand is falling and that British Rail will have to adjust to that, does he maintain the commitment that the wholesale closure of lines will not take place at the present level of investment?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. I keep to the commitment that the wholesale closure of lines will not take place. It is not I who am saying that there is a fall in demand and excess capacity; I was reading from a statement by British Rail that was issued today.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not discourteous to the House that, in answer to a question, the Minister did not give a ministerial answer but quoted from a press notice? We are entitled—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall make a ruling about points of order on questions at the end of Question Time.

British Rail (Financial Limits)

Mr. Bowen Wells: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the financial limits set for British Rail by his Department.

Mr. Fowler: The British Railways Board's external finance limit for 1980–81 stands at £790 million. This reflects the £40 million increase I announced on 18 September to take account of the board's worsening business position. The limit for 1981–82 is £920 million. Both limits present the board with challenging but realistic targets. I have today announced the ceiling on the grant for passenger services for 1981.

Mr. Wells: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Within those financial limits, how much money will British Rail spend on advertising?

Mr. Fowler: I understand that British Rail's advertising budget is running at about £9½ million a year.

Mr. Flannery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the French Government have invested more in the Paris Metro than we have invested in the whole of British Rail? The lack of investment is having adverse effects. For example, the Sheffield to London line is so badly affected that in the railways it is known as the longest railway siding in Britain. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to remedy the position, because all the towns on that line are desperate for investment?

Mr. Fowler: The position in France, and particularly in Paris, is that the money and revenue for the railways come from a special tax on businesses. That is an option that the hon. Gentleman might support, but it is not an option that many businesses in London would support. I understand the European comparisons, but we have to deal with the situation in Britain today, not with generalised comparisons throughout Western Europe.

Mr. Iain Mills: Does my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the bully-boy tactics employed by the Opposition and trade unions in trying to force the Government away from the position that he so clearly outlined? Will he, having privatised the British Rail subsidiaries, consider that one solution to the problem may well be further privatisation of certain aspects of British Rail's business?

Mr. Fowler: Whatever differences there may be between the Government and the Opposition—and clearly there are a number of important ones—I think that the advice from both sides of the House must basically be that it is best to cool the present situation and that industrial action can only harm the railway industry and passengers. I hope that that message goes out from both sides of the House.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that to talk of the EFL limit in the terms that he has done is ridiculous? Does he realise that it is not accepted as reasonable by either British Rail or the rail unions? Does he further realise that it would not be accepted by any rail user who had a grain of sense? As the Minister does not have a grain of sense, we do not expect a sensible answer from him.

Mr. Fowler: That was a pretty pathetic supplementary. I shall try to fill in the hon. Gentleman. The external finance limit of British Rail is £920 million. Taxpayers, and the ratepayers to a lesser extent, are paying £2 million a day in support for rail services. That is a fair deal. As far as I know, that external finance limit is not rejected by the railways board but is accepted by it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Civil Service

Terms and Conditions of Service

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when last he met representatives of the staff side of the National Whitley Council to discuss terms and conditions of service.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Paul Channon): My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and I last met the Council of Civil Service Unions on 1 August to discuss Civil Service pay. I do, of course, see representatives of the union side regularly on everyday business matters.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Has the Minister discussed with the Council of Civil Service Unions the remarks made by the Prime Minister, which were published at the weekend, about index-linked pensions? Will he assure the House that those remarks do not pre-empt the findings of the Scott inquiry into index-linked pensions, as that would make the inquiry a waste of public funds and be an insult to those taking part in it? Can he assure retired public service pensioners that their pensions will not be affected? Is he aware that they planned their retirement on the basis of their pensions? Even if a change is made in pensions for existing servants of the Crown, will he assure us that that will not affect those who have already retired?

Mr. Channon: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington


(Mr. Stanbrook), when she said that we must await the Scott inquiry before taking decisions on any of these matters.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this might be a good moment to get shot of the whole ludicrous principle of comparability in the negotiation of public sector wages, including the Civil Service, for good and for all?

Mr. Channon: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. Perhaps we should await the Scott inquiry and consider the position in the light of that.

Mr. Woolmer: Will the Minister confirm that the important matter of index-linked pensions affects not only 385,000 dependants and retired civil servants but more than 1½ million public service dependants and retired workers, including Health Service workers, policemen, firemen, the Armed Services and so on? Does he not feel that the remarks being made by the Prime Minister and by others of his colleagues can only be unsettling, not only to existing workers but especially to retired people? Is it not time that we stopped sabre-rattling and at least reassured retired people?

Mr. Channon: I agree that it is an important matter that affects the categories of people that the hon. Gentleman recited. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in the House that we must await the Scott inquiry report. That seems to be sensible.

Sir Derek Rayner

Mr. Thornton: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what liaison he has with Sir Derek Rayner about his work.

Mr. Channon: I keep in close touch with Sir Derek Rayner. My officials work with his and with officials in Departments in a concerted search for greater efficiency.

Mr. Thornton: Will my right hon. Friend give the House some details of the possible source of the savings that might be recommended by Sir Derek Rayner?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend may know that there have been a number of scrutinies in Departments, led by Sir Derek Rayner, using civil servants in those Departments. So far, decisions already taken will save about £25 million a year and more than £20 million once and for all. Savings are growing continually as further decisions are taken. A new round of scrutinies will begin shortly.

Mr. Carter-Jones: In discussions with Sir Derek Rayner and his associates, will the Minister raise the question of protecting the pension rights and job conditions of those affected by the hare-brained privatisation scheme for the Royal ordnance factories?

Mr. Channon: Any question of the change of status of Royal ordnance factories is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I shall draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that progress is being made towards reducing some of the top-heavy layers in the administrative grades of the Civil Service, notably at under-secretary level?

Mr. Channon: The top levels have taken a more than proportionate share of the reductions in the size of the Civil Service. It is our firm intention that there should be savings all along the line, including in the top sections.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that there is a conflict between the assurance that Civil Service cuts would not involve closures in branches and out-stations and the decision of the Department of Industry to close the out-station of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in Glasgow? Will he investigate the matter and ensure that that valuable facility in Scotland remains open?

Mr. Channon: I shall investigate anything that the hon. Gentleman asks me to investigate. That appears to be a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, but I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point.

Pay

Mr. Straw: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations over Civil Service pay.

Mr. Channon: The Government have made clear that the 1981 Civil Service pay settlement will be based on the cash limit, reflecting what the country as a whole can afford.

Mr. Straw: As the Secretary of State for the Environment said that the 6 per cent. pay policy would continue for two years, will the Minister say whether that 6 per cent. cash limit will apply to Civil Service pay negotiations for the same two-year period?

Mr. Channon: We have not even set the cash limit for the Civil Service for 1981, let alone 1982. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not object if I ask him to be patient for a little longer.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on the question of comparability? Is he aware that the issue that must be of concern is the suspension of comparability for only the present negotiations? Does he agree that our experience during the past year shows that the whole concept of comparability in assessing appropriate rates of pay thoughout the public sector is nonsense?

Mr. Channon: I note my hon. Friend's view, of which I was already aware. Decisions have been taken about the 1981 pay settlement. No decisions whatsoever have been taken about 1982. Talks are taking place with trade unions about that matter. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, and we shall discuss the matter with him.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Under the Government's present policy, can any civil servant obtain more than 6 per cent., and, if so, how?

Mr. Channon: As no cash limit has yet been set for the Civil Service, it is impossible for me to answer that question. I have said on many occasions that pay will be dealt with broadly within the same financial disciplines as those already announced, but no cash limit has been set.

Northern Region

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he now has for dispersing Civil Service posts to the Northern region.

Mr. Channon: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 5 November.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that the Government constantly wring their hands and repeat that the employment situation in the Northern region can improve only when the national economy improves? Does he accept that the Government have it within their power to transfer many jobs to the Northern region? In view of the desperate and deteriorating position in that area, will he reverse the decision that he made last year, when he stopped hundreds of jobs from going to the North?

Mr. Channon: I should be misleading the House and the hon. Gentleman if I were to say that we would reopen the question of dispersal. That was the subject of a review last year, when a considered statement was made. The Government will stick to their decisions. We intend to continue with the dispersal of the same numbers and the same posts to the same locations that we announced. I cannot today announce a further review.

Mr. David Watkins: Because unemployment in the onsett and Stanley part of the Northern region is already catastrophic and is increasing rapidly, will the Minister review the position and try to send some jobs there?

Mr. Channon: I cannot add anything to my reply to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). There are proportionately more Civil Service jobs in the Northern region than in most other parts of the country. I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman in the way that he wishes.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister at least stop his colleagues from dispersing Civil Service jobs from the Northern region by relocating, as they plan to do, the regional offices of the Departments of the Environment and Transport in Leeds instead of Newcastle? Does he not realise the damage that that will cause?

Mr. Channon: I shall take up that matter with my right hon. Friend, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do so as well.

Manpower Reductions

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what have been the total reductions in the numbers of non-industrial and industrial civil servants, respectively, since May 1979; and by how much these figures differ from the annual reductions made between 1974 and 1979.

Mr. Channon: Between 1 April 1979 and 1 October 1980, non-industrial staff numbers fell by 22,600 and industrial staff by 12,600. Between April 1974 and April 1979, non-industrial staff numbers rose by 53,900 and industrial staff numbers fell by 13,700.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome that trend, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are on course with the planned reductions to a total of 630,000 by 1974? Will he confirm also that that target can be achieved, in theory, by recruiting only three new entrants to the Civil Service for every four who leave voluntarily or retire naturally?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I can confirm that we ale on course to achieve that aim. I have not done the mathematics, but I think that my hon. Friend is broadly right in his assumptions.

Questions to Ministers (Points of Order)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised the question of points of order arising out of questions. I have referred to the record. I said on 19 July 1978 that I preferred to take points of order arising out of Question Time immediately at the end o0f Question Time but other points of order after statements. I must warn the House that that is not an encouragement for points of order, because nine times out of ten, as the House knows, it is not a point of order. It is either a point of indignation or frustration, or some other disease from which hon. Members suffer.

Forestry Policy (Review)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr George Younger): The Government have now completed their review of forestry policy and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
With the projected rise in demand for timber into the next century and with the world's forests likely to come under increasing pressure, the Government believe that long-term confidence in both forestry and wood-processing industries in this country is fully justified. We look for a steadily increasing proportion of our requirements of timber to come from our own resources. A continuing expansion of forestry is in the national interest, both to reduce our dependence on imported wood in the long term and to provide continued employment in forestry and associated industries.
Recent difficulties in the pulp and paper sector, which represents only one-eighth of the market for wood grown in this country, do not change that conclusion. Forest owners have adjusted to the changed markets. Export opportunities in Europe for small roundwood are being successfully exploited. Looking further ahead, our industries, with the more advanced processes being developed in this country, are expected to be capable of absorbing the rising production from our existing forests, and of enlarging their present 9 per cent. share of the home market.
There should be scope for new planting to continue in the immediate future at broadly the rate of the past 25 years while preserving an acceptable balance with agriculture, the environment and other interests. We see a greater place for participation by the private sector in new planting, but the Forestry Commission will also continue to have a programme of new planting, in particular where it will contribute to the rational management of its existing plantations, and also in the more remote and less fertile areas, where afforestation will help maintain rural employment.
The main basis of policy for the future must remain the successful and harmonious partnership between the private sector and the Forestry Commission. In accordance, however, with the Government's support for private enterprise and our policy of reducing public expenditure, a determined effort will be made, by making better use of the capital invested in its existing assets, to reduce that part of the commission's grant-in-aid which finances the forestry enterprise. We therefore propose to provide opportunities for private investment in these assets, including the sale of a proportion of the commission's woodlands and land awaiting planting, with lease-back arrangements where it is important to maintain continuity of management to meet wood supply requirements or to preserve environmental interests. In planning its broad implementation of this policy, the Forestry Commission will take account of the views of the organisations concerned. We will seek an early opportunity to take the necessary powers for private investment in commission assets on these lines.
Following a review of the administration of grant-aid and felling licensing, carried out under the auspices of Sir Derek Rayner, we propose to make these less complex and less costly to administer. A single new scheme will be introduced at the start of the next forest year on 1 October 1981, of which the main features will be planting grants,

a simplified plan of operations and a minimum of legal formalities. The basis III dedication scheme and the small woods scheme will accordingly be closed as from 1 July 1981.
Existing dedication schemes will continue for present participants, although some procedures will be simplified and individual dedication agreements will not be renewed on a change of ownership. The felling licensing system will be simplified to recognise the change in circumstances since this was introduced. Copies of a consultative paper, on which the various interested parties are being invited to comment, have been placed in the Vote Office.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already informed the House, the Government intend to continue the current income tax arrangements for forestry in order to maintain confidence in the private sector.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Resign!

Mr. Bruce Milian: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he says that the Government are in favour of a continuing expansion of forestry in the national interest he will have our agreement, but that he will not have our agreement to anything else that he has said in his statement, especially the hiving off proposals?
Is it not scandalous that we have to rely on imported timber for more than 90 per cent. of our requirements, with a balance of payments deficit arising from that of nearly £3 billion? Is it not scandalous also that because of high energy costs and for other reasons we are now seeing wood-processing industries closing down—for example, at Ellesmere Port and Corpach—and the ridiculous situation in which Scottish timber is being exported to Scandinavia to be made into newsprint, which is shipped back to Britain at about 10 times the cost of the timber itself? It is ludicrous that that situation is developing.
We shall want to consider planting figures. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that the more profitable areas will go to private enterprise and that the Forestry Commission will be left with the more difficult areas. Bearing in mind the success of the commission and the good job that it has done for no fewer than 60 years, we are utterly opposed to that.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are totally opposed to hiving off part of the Forestry Commission to private enterprise? It is not a matter of handing it over to private enterprise, because private enterprise operates in forestry only by means of planting grants—that is public money—and various income tax concessions. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that without those public subsidies we would not have a private forestry industry? The commission is doing the main job that requires to be done and is doing it with considerable economies. We shall oppose the legislation that the Government introduce to hive off any part of the commission's enterprise.
Is this not a prospectus for individuals to get into private forestry in the United Kingdom not with any legitimate interest in forestry or in the expansion of the forestry industry but merely to make money out of income tax concessions that are available to private forestry? That is the purpose of the hiving-off operation, and that will be the effect of it. We are utterly opposed to that, and we shall seek a debate in the House on this issue as soon as possible.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful for the agreement of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) with the general objective of expanding forestry at the same level as in previous years. I am afraid that the rest of his remarks seem to owe more to Socialist ideology than to any wish to help the forestry industry. If the right hon. Gentleman had in mind the interests of the industry, or the forestry-using industries, surely he would be glad at the prospect of a great deal more private capital coming into the industries at a time of great difficulty. He is completely hiding his head in the sand if he thinks that the expansion o f forestry planting, which has been a feature of the past few years, can continue successfully in any other way in the years to come.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's point about private enterprise taking over certain areas, he is absolutely wrong in believing that it will have any objective other than to get the best possible use of forestry land. If ether foresters can do that, surely he should welcome it in the interests of everyone who works in the industry.

Mr. Alex Pollock: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward the long-awaited statement on forestry? Does he foresee a need to impose conditions or the selling of assets to the private sector? In particular, will he ensure that a strong family private sector is maintained, as well as a corporate private sector?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the statement, The Forestry Commission will decide what pieces of land to offer for sale. As my hon. Friend will know well, almost all private operators who will wish to plant land will want the aid of a grant, in which case the Forestry Commission will be able to put conditions on it.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is welcome if only as the first that we have had on forestry for about eight years—although accept that the previous Administration are equally at fault? Is he aware that the current rate of planting is far too low for the years ahead and should be at least doubled in Scotland, where there is ample scope and where doubt about forestry has held up the purchase of plantable land? Will he further accept that there is no reason, other than looting the public purse, to transfer forestry to private interests?

Mr. Younger: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said at the beginning of his question. I appreciate his enthusiasm to see more planting—an enthusiasm that I share. However, if he thinks about it he may agree not only that the availability of finance for such a huge expansion of planting would be difficult to find but that there would be formidable environmental and agricultural problems to overcome if planting on the scale that he recommends were attempted.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Although the Secretary of State for Scotland made the statement and the Shadow Secretary of State asked the first question this is a United Kingdom issue. It is just as well for me to understand that.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having come to grips with the Forestry Commission, which usually succeeds in playing off the three Ministers responsible for it one

against the other? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that Department costs £30 million a year? Will he also confirm that as the statement that he has just made is so important, we shall shortly be able to debate the matter? Is he aware that many interests welcome the fact that he has not fallen over backwards for a vast increase in forest acreage, because there are many watersheds that can have no more trees, and fishing is more valuable than forestry?

Mr. Younger: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for my statement. He is right in saying that in planning the future planting programme one has to take into account all the interests that may be affected. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have noted his request for a debate, which is a very good idea. I agree that in the future programme the commission will have a great role to play. Its present grant-in-aid is roughly what my hon. Friend mentioned. It is possible that it will be progressively reduced in the future by the announcements that I have made today.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Secretary of State hold the view that after 50 years the Forestry Commission has failed in its deliberations? If so, what plans or incentives does he have in mind for the private sector in the purchase of land? Is the Secretary of State aware that many employees in hamlets throughout Britain are dependent on the commission? What plans does he have to safeguard their interests? How many acres of land in Scotland, England and Wales will be sold during the first five years?

Mr. Younger: I cannot give an estimate of how many acres will be sold. It will depend very much on the demand. The commission will have control over what is put up for sale. It will clearly be pieces of land that make sense in the context of its general estate. I by no means believe that the commission has failed. It has been immensely successful over the past years. It has been particularly successful because it has always worked as a partnership with private forestry. That is why I believe that the change in the balance between the private sector and the commission is very much to be welcomed. It will enable the planting programme to continue at the same rate as over the past few years. Almost all the land will remain within forestry. We expect very few, if any, redundancies in the commission, but if there are any they should be taken up by the private sector, which will be operating the forests in its place.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the South-West of England forestry has an important role, industrial:1y and socially? I welcome what he says wholeheartedly, but will he also ensure that any transfer of land to the private sector is well planned and carried out carefully? Is he aware that there could be serious repercussions if only the poorer forests were left to the Forestry Commission?

Mr. Younger: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Forestry is of great importance in the South-West. As I have said, the Forestry Commission will be basically in charge of what is sold and will very much bear in mind the sort of criteria that he has mentioned.

Mr. John Home Robertson: If the Minister must pursue a policy of asset stripping in the public sector, will he at least undertake that the proceeds of such sales of


forestry land will remain in the hands of the Forestry Commission and that it will be able to reinvest the funds in new land for planting and new planting? Will he also undertake to see that the Commission will not retain only the poorest land, which is what he seemed to be hinting at in his statement?

Mr. Younger: The Forestry Commission will not retain only the poorest land. It will be for the commission to decide which parts of its estate it considers most suitable for selling. Some of the proceeds will be used for the commission's operations and some may be used to reduce its grant-in-aid. The commission in general will be able to make better use of its assets in this manner, which is one of the best features of the change.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will he as brief as possible. I propose to allow questions until 4 o'clock.

Mr. W. Benyon: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to say what degree of import substitution for timber products the Government would like to see in the medium and long term?

Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend implies, that is an important feature. Our existing forests, public and private, are at present supplying 9 per cent. of our wood and wood product requirements. By the end of the century, when our existing forests will be in full production, they will be supplying about 15 per cent. Because we do not consider that that figure is high enough we are planning to continue the planting programme at its present rate for the future and bring in the private sector to help.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that forests not only produce trees and timber but act as amenity areas for many millions of people throughout the country? Can he confirm that much of the land that will be transferred from the Forestry Commission to private investment will be in England, where the commission has not such a good network to manage as in Scotland? The commission has an excellent record in terms of access for the general public. It operates a policy of open access, so will the Minister assure us that land sold to private industry will afford complete and free access to the general public.

Mr. Younger: I agree that the Forestry Commission feels strongly about public access and its environmental role. It will very much bear that in mind in deciding, first, which pieces of land are suitable for sale. Secondly, when the land is sold and grants are sought for planting it will be able to impose conditions, if it wishes, with regard to access and other environmental factors.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will there be specific encouragement to plant more hardwoods? Could my right hon. Friend say a little more about the advice or instructions that will be given to the Forestry Commission when it determines what is to be sold?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about hardwoods. The Forestry Commission will be bearing that in mind when it decides the management of its future estates and its policy on giving grants with possible conditions to those

who buy the land. That is the best safeguard. The commission is very conscious of its responsibilities.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the private sector's attitude towards planting has been amply demonstrated by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who displayed his hostility towards planting trees and who, I think, owns about 30,000 acres of my constituency—land that the Forestry Commission would gladly plant? Does he accept that if he is to rely on individuals like the hon. Member for Gainsborough in the private sector to increase plantings he will be putting his hand very deeply into the public purse to make it worth their while? Does he realise that the commission is hampered in expanding its planting by obstruction by people like the hon. Member for Gainsborough?

Mr. Younger: I do not accept any of what the hon. Gentleman said about my hon. Friend's activities. I am sure that on reflection he will agree that the decision whether to plant particular areas depends on a wide range of factors, including a knowledge of the ground in question. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he makes off-the-cuff statements of that sort on this matter.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the New Forest the Forestry Commission is involved in tourism as well as forestry? Since many of the camp sites are on prime grazing land, will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the chairman of the commission to make sure that the revenues derived from these activities are used to help those such as the Court of Verderers, who are responsible for animal welfare in the area?

Mr. Younger: It is unlikely that the Forestry Commission would wish or decide to put such properties up for sale. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the commission to ensure that it has those points in mind.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance on behalf of the Government that his statement will not mean that there will be interference with the commission's activities, particularly in Wales, in respect of the reclamation of land that has been used for opencast working?

Mr. Younger: There will be no interference or alteration in the commission's policy on these matters as a result of my statement.

Mr. Roger Moate: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on presenting a package that will sensibly release substantial amounts of taxpayers' assets, encourage private investment and involve an expansion of and a commitment to forestry? Does he accept that an essential part of this presentation is future demand on the paper and board industry, and that the present closures pose a threat to the continued flow of products from our forests? Will he urge the commission to take a much more commercial line, as the Government encouraged it to do with Ellesmere Port, to help to sustain other paper mills and particularly mills in the newsprint business so that they can get through these difficult times?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that this injection of private capital should enable the forestry


industry to continue to expand at a difficult time. I agree about the industry's importance to the paper and board industry, which is going through a peculiarly difficult time. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of those concerned.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Before faking the statement, did the right hon. Gentleman consult the district authorities that have national parks within their areas—such as the Alderdale, district authority? Did he consult the papermakers' federation on a national basis about the decision to sell off Forestry Commission properties?

Mr. Younger: There has been a wide range of consultation over a long period. As the hon. Gentleman will know, this statement has been a long time coming. I give the assurance that in the implementation of the policy account will be taken of the views of all other bodies concerned.

Mr. David Myles: Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the integration of agriculture and forestry, especially in upland areas? Will he consult I his right hon. and hon. Friends about how incentives can I be given to enable forestry to become a tenant's crop in the upland areas?

Mr. Younger: The National Farmers Union and tine Forestry Commission have been in touch about this matter for some time. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to their attention. I hope that the new grants system and the certainty of the continuation of the tax regime will encourage, all concerned who may be able to tare advantage of planting to do so.

Mr. David Steel: What has been the loss of income to the Forestry Commission since the closure of Ellesmere Port and other pulp works? Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government clearly did not think through the consequences to the commission of allowing these mills to go to the wall? Will he enlarge upon that part of the statement that refers to the sale of assets and lease-back arrangements, which seem to have spread from the Falkland Islands to the Forestry Commission?

Mr. Younger: I do not have a figure—it is a bit early yet—about any loss of income from the closure of Ellesmere Port. I would not have thought that there was any, however, as the commission is successfully exporting timber at prices rather better than those that it was previously getting. If the right hon. Gentleman would like an answer to that question it can no doubt be provided if he will table a question.

Mr. John MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend a hare that his statement will be read with interest by the tourist industry and agriculturists in my constituency, which suffers from some of the worst examples of blanket planting by the Forestry Commission? Will he ensure that any extra timber is gained not through blanket planting but through a proper integration with agriculture, because the countryside needs both in order to secure a proper balance?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. This matter is very much in the mind of the Forestry Commission, which, with the planning authorities, will retain most of the control on what is done in this way.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What serious answer can the Secretary of State give to the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) that the less desirable areas of forest will be retained by the commission while the more desirable parts will be sold off? Have the Government thought through precisely what will happen in an area like West Lothian? There the commission has done doubtless excellent but very expensive work in the Fauldhouse and Stoneyburn areas, where land will be kept on because no private owner would look at the area. In the area just by the Forth, however, there is rich woodland, which it may be thought highly desirable to sell off to Lord Rosebery, Lord Linlithgow, or whomsoever.

Mr. Younger: The Forestry Commission will decide which pieces of land it wishes to sell. It has an intense public responsibility, which it carries out conscientiously.

Mr. Ian Lang: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituency has one of the highest proportions of land given over to forestry in the United Kingdom? What will be the maximum and minimum acreages to be sold? I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he indicate what encouragement he can give to increasing forestry-related employment in South-West Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I know that the forestry in my hon. Friend's constituency is extensive. The commission attaches great importance to these large plantations. I should think it most unlikely that it would wish to sell them off. On employment, the commission hopes that the new people who take over land for the private sector will wish to make it marketable for industries that depend upon timber. That is the best way of increasing employment in forestry and forestry-related industries.

Mr. Robert Litherland: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the hiving off of these limited natural resources will be not to family concerns but, more likely, to Scandinavian firms? Is he aware that the import of dear wood pulp and cheap print material is another nail in the coffin of the paper manufacturing industry in Britain?

Mr. Younger: Under these proposals areas will be planted when otherwise they would not have been. They will employ people in that work and in managing them, and they will eventually provide raw material for British industry. If we can bring in private capital to help do that and relieve pressure on the public sector, everyone will be that much better off.

Mr. George Foulkes: If the Government insist on selling off public assets, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that those who benefit by the sale will not get letters inviting contributions to Tory Party funds?

Mr. Younger: I should think that the public will benefit from the sale, in that it will have better use of its assets and a greater certainty of an expanded forestry programme, to the advantage of the country's economy.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is it not a measure of the extent to which the Government are motivated by extreme Right-wing ideology that they should decide to dismember a State commission that has served the nation well under successive Governments for 60 years? Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the


British Paper and Board Industry Federation, which repesents the Reeds and Bowaters of this country, is opposed to the hiving off of State assets? Will he end the nonsense about the commission's having freedom to buy other land and admit that this is a policy of selling State assets, and that there are no forestry arguments in favour of it?

Mr. Younger: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about any of that. The Forestry Commission has done an extremely good job for many years. As to motivation, what this Government are motivated to do is to see that public assets are better used to the better benefit of everyone in this country.

Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Scotland to present a Bill to the House this afternoon when it appears that some bodies outside the House have already anticipated the passing of that Bill? I refer to the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill, which is listed for presentation this afternoon in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland and which, among other things, proposes to spend millions of pounds of public money on an assisted places scheme for private, privileged, fee-paying schools. From information that I hove received it seems that at least one school in Scotland—Dundee high school—has already sent out preliminary application forms.
Is it in order for outside bodies such as Dundee high school to anticipate the passing of legislation in this House before the House of Commons has had the opportunity to debate and to vote upon the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know enough about the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised to give him a reasoned reply, but I will, of course, consider it.

Northern Ireland (Dublin Talks)

Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for the House of Commons to be immediately informed by the Prime Minister about the nature and details of the agreement reached in the discussions with the Taoiseach in Dublin on 8 December.
I underline afresh, as I did yesterday, that of course I am not questioning in any sense whatsoever the right and, indeed, the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to engage in discussions and meetings in Dublin on the kind of matters that were raised there. That is perfectly natural and, indeed, we wish to hear what moves have been made. What I am asking for is prompt and proper reports to the House of Commons.
Since yesterday, and since you, Mr. Speaker, ruled on another application yesterday—and I understand that that is a matter that might enter into your consideration—there have been further developments. Some of those developments we forecast when I raised the matter yesterday, but that does not mean that they are any less relevant.
I do not think that anybody who has studied some of the reports that have come out in Dublin and in London on this matter could question what I said yesterday, namely, that there is a real danger of different understandings and interpretations being placed upon these matters in Dublin and in London. Whatever may be our views on these questions, we must surely wish to see that that divergence does not occur, because it could lead to very serious misunderstandings. I therefore urge that the House should take that into account.
Moreover, of course, since the application yesterday it has been announced that there is to be a debate in the Dail. The Dail is perfectly entitled to have its debate and report on what occurred, but we are entitled to have the report here, in the House of Commons, from the Prime Minister, who is the only person who can report on all these matters. Although some of these questions are open for debate in the House later, the Prime Minister is the only person who can report to the House fully.
I therefore urge most strongly—and I should have thought that this was precisely the kind of use for which Standing Order No. 9 was devised, that is, on occasions of urgent necessity such as this, when the House of Commons wishes to hear from the Government and perhaps to give advice to the Government—that we should have the matter raised.
I therefore raise these matters not in any sense to interfere with or to cause difficulties for the Government's negotiations but in the interests of clarity and in defence of the rights of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss
the need for the House of Commons to be immediately informed by the Prime Minister about the nature and details of the agreement reached in the discussions with the Taoiseach in Dublin on 8 December.
Since I received the right hon. Gentleman's notice, I have read again with great care the exchanges that took place yesterday and, indeed, the ruling that I gave yesterday.
The House knows that it is never easy for me to decide on these questions of an emergency debate, but that I give the same consideration to them whoever makes the application. The House has advised me that I can give no reasons for my ruling on this question, but the House will also be aware, as I said yesterday, that I do not decide whether the House will discuss this matter. I decide only whether it should be discussed tonight or tomorrow night.
I have listened with care to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provision of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There may be points of order, but nobody can raise a point of order on my ruling.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, I am not raising a point of order about your ruling, but it relates to the refusal of the Prime Minister to make a statement on the Dublin talks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that that would be too close to a point of order on my ruling.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I in no way question the ruling that you have made, but the difficulty in which the House is now placed is that bilateral talks have been held, a statement has been made in the Irish Parliament—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a discussion on that matter now.

Mr. Evans: Would it not be possible, Mr. Speaker, with the Leader of the House here, to know whether we are to have a statement, in view of the demand that has been made on both sides of the House?

Mr. James Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This has nothing to do with your ruling. I understand that an official from the Northern Ireland Office visited the hunger strikers in the Maze prison today and was reading to them from Hansard. I wondered whether any action could be taken on humanitarian grounds.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I intend to call one very senior Member of the House.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]. Of course, we are all equal in the House, but, as I have indicated before, some are a little more equal than others. I want the House to understand that there can be no points of order about my ruling.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is not on your present ruling, but we know that there have been occasions w hen, immediately following upon your ruling, something rum has happened whereby the same approach can be made, literally within hours, and when, because of the changed circumstances, the Chair has ruled that the matter would then be in order.
My point of order is this: if, during the debate that the democratic Dail is to have but this democratic Parliament cannot have, something is said or revealed there which would then alter the procedure and alter your decision, would you give further consideration to a new approach, in view of the new information? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. There is to be a debate in the Dail, because it is more democratic than we are. I am asking whether, if something is revealed there, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition or one of my other right hon. Friends could come forward with a fresh application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has always been courteous to me, and I am grateful for the way in which he made his point of order. He will know that I never rule on suppositions. I find it difficult to read the future, and I am therefore reluctant to rule on what he said.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) forgot that all remarks in this House are directed to me. I have no intention of sitting down at the moment.

Mr. Cryer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that we can do without the mouth from Louth at the moment.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked you a question about Standing Order No. 8, and you kindly gave a ruling on it. This is the first opportunity that I have had of reading your ruling in Hansard. You say that under Standing Order No. 8 you have the power to allow questions after 3.30 pin, that that does not relate solely to private notice questions but to any questions, and that you
do not propose to put a new interpretation on the rule."—[Official Report, 9 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 1188.]
May I take it that that does not mean that only Government-supported questions will be allowed? The previous week, Mr. Speaker, you allowed such a question relating to the arming of women Service personnel to be taken after 3.30 pm. I am concerned that the rights of the Opposition should be maintained on this and other matters, because many of us feel that the Prime Minister has trampled on the rights of Parliament by not making a statement. It is important that your powers should in no way be trampled upon or in any way be seen to be simply defending the Government's position.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman entered the House in 1974. In the past few years we have not had what was until then a common experience of Ministers answering questions, with permission, at the end of Question Time. Alternatively, if there was a question on the Order Paper that they particularly wished to answer, and if it was one in which the House had an interest, they sought leave to answer it after Question Time. That is a long-established custom in this House, which has continued for well over 100 years.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to raise this with you now because I know that the House is anxious to proceed. I honestly believe that if the House proceeds to the next business without resolving the problems relating to the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Eire—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have points of order on that matter now. I have dealt with an application under Standing Order No. 9 and have taken other points of order. I am taking no further points of order on the issue of the Dublin talks.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 16 JANUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Christopher price
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens
Mr. Anthony Fell

BILLS PRESENTED

WATER

Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards and Mr. Torn King, presented a Bill to provide for increasing the borrowing powers of the British Waterways Board and to make further provision relating to water supply And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 15].

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2)

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Object.
Mr. Secretary Younger, supported by Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Alexander Fletcher, Mr. Russell Fairgrieve and Mr. Nigel Lawson, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to education in Scotland; to amend the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965; and to transfer to the respective University Courts the power of appointing the Principals of the Universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow and Aberdeen: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 14].

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 26 November, be approved.
I should first like to welcome back to the Opposition Front 'Bench the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who spent a long time in the Province, and like all of us who have spent time there has formed a warm affection for the Province and its people. We look forward to the right hon. Gentleman once again participating in our debates.
The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The draft order provides for the Appropriation of the autumn Supplementary Estimates of Northern Ireland Departments. I shall indicate some of the general features of the Estimates before drawing the attention of the House to some of the major items which they contain. More detailed information can be found in the Estimates volume itself, copies of which have been placed in the Library, and in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to right hon. and hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies, Opposition spokesmen on Northern Ireland affairs, and others who have participated in recent Appropriation order debates. I hope that these have been found to be useful.
The first general objective of the draft order is to provide additional cash to allow for the effects of inflation on those Votes, mostly relating to demand-determined services, which are exempt from cash limits controls.
This, as hon. Members will be aware, is one of the principal purposes of Supplementary Estimates. The draft order also includes provision for the main 1980–81 Civil Service pay awards, for which no provision was made in the main Estimates. The cash now included allows for a 14 per cent. increase in earnings over the year, and consequently some reduction in manpower has been necessary to accommodate the actual settlements which have emerged.
Thirdly, the draft order provides for the reallocation, within and between Votes, which Departments usually find necessary as the year progresses but which this year assumed unusual proportions.
In that connection, hon. Members will recall the reallocation of Northern Ireland's public expenditure resources announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 6 August last. It was then proving to be quite impossible to respond to the greater demands which were

arising on the industrial and energy fronts without incurring some reduction on other programmes, despite the addition of £48 million to Northern Ireland's budget from the United Kingdom contingency reserve fund. The considerations which dictated the reallocation of resources were the need to create and sustain employment in the productive sector of the Northern Ireland economy. I trust that the House accepts the correctness of our pursuing this course.
There are a number of points on the figures quoted in the autumn Supplementary Estimates and in the schedule to the draft order which it might be helpful to mention at this stage. A simple addition of the net totals of the 1980–81 main Estimates and the autumn Supplementary Estimates would overstate the total amount of cash that Northern Ireland Departments will actually spend this year on voted services. This is because the conventions which govern the presentation of Estimates to the House do not always permit savings or reductions to be shown. The explanatory memorandum lists the services on which such savings are expected to arise, and Northern Ireland Departments will, of course, take account of these planned savings in the day-to-day management of their voted expenditure.
It is also important to note that not all the public expenditure additions and reallocations announced during the summer are reflected in these Estimates. The principal reasons for this are that some of the services concerned are not borne on the Vote, and some are undertaken by the Northern Ireland Office and as such are outside the scope of the draft Appropriation order.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: A matter of debate arises on the point to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. Will he make it clear whether there have been any transfers from the Northern Ireland Vote to other Votes, or whether the reallocation between Votes, to which he has just referred was exclusively from the Northern Ireland Office in the direction of the Northern Ireland Vote?

Mr. Rossi: The reallocation has taken place between Northern Ireland Departments, mainly from the education Vote and the environment Vote to the Votes of the Department of Commerce, which deals with industry and energy matters.
Turning to details of the draft order, I should like to direct hon. Members' attention to the additional provision sought for services administered by the Department of Commerce. As the Department with the primary responsibility for the maintenance and creation of jobs in Northern Ireland, its Votes are the main destinations of the resources that were made available from the contingency reserve and from other Northern Ireland programmes.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I apologise to the Minister for intervening, especially as he may intend to return to the agriculture Vote. He will be aware, however, that we have been attempting to arrange a meeting between the officers of the Ulster Farmers Union and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of Agriculture. I do not expect the Under-Secretary to reply, but perhaps one of his colleagues will tell us later whether it has been possible to arrange that meeting. It is rightly considered to be of great importance in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Rossi: That point has been noted. My hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate is responsible for agriculture matters and he will deal with that subject.
In Class II, Vote 2. Sub-head A1, provision is sought for an additional £13·1 million to enable a loan of £14 million to be made to De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. in respect of its project at Dunmurry, which could employ up to 2,000 people. That loan assistance is necessary due to increases in costs, mainly resulting from inflation, which have occurred since the project began and which the Government were contractually bound to provide, to enable the company to bring the car to market launch in the early spring of next year.
Under Sub-head A4 of Class II, Vote 2, the increase in the provision for industrial development grants similarly reflects the decision taken during the summer to reallocate funds in favour of Northern Ireland's economic programmes. The intention in this case is to enable the Department of Commerce to sustain its commitments to firms under existing agreements and to enable it to enter into new agreements relayed to the maintenance of employment. Hon. Members will appreciate the crucial importance of putting the Department of Commerce in a position to accommodate the higher level of expenditure required for the grants.
Under Sub-head B2 there is a provision of £8·2 million for assistance to Harland and Wolff Ltd., the Belfast shipbuilder, which at present employs more than 7,000 workers. That amount is needed to bring the Estimates provision into line with the total figure for assistance—£12·5 million—approved by the Government for the support of Harland and Wolff this year and announced in the House on 1 July. The yard would have to close without the support and that would have resulted in a far larger drain on public resources.
Class II, Vote 2, Sub-head D1, includes provision of £4·7 million to meet claims that have already been received from eligible manufacturing companies under the Northern Ireland scheme of standard grants towards the cost of capital equipment. The increase in the provision being sought takes account of claims being submitted more quickly because of cash problems in industry, and the change by some companies from the purchase of equipment to leasing arrangements, which qualify for capital grant rather than the selective industrial development grant. Certain re-equipment projects that might previously have qualified for the higher, selective rate of grant are now generally assisted by standard capital grant. Those grants, unlike the selective industrial development grant, are not employment-related.
I turn to energy. Under Class II, Vote 3, provision is sought for a grant of £20 million to the Northern Ireland electricity service. Hon. Members will be aware that the service depends heavily on oil for electricity generation. The rises in world oil prices in the past year have caused major financial difficulties for the electricity service and, without Government intervention, would have necessitated tariff increases well in excess of those introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom. In response to that situation, a major review of future electricity supply arrangements in Northern Ireland is being undertaken. The additional provision now sought will compensate the electricity service for holding the differential on industrial and domestic tariffs between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
While the subsidy does not have quantifiable employment effect, it protects industrial and other electricity consumers from the major increases in tariffs which would otherwise have been necessary. As such, it is an important means of helping Northern Ireland industry to cope with a major factor affecting its competitiveness and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will recognise its value to the Province.
Still on energy, under Class III, Vote 1, provision totalling £8·9 million is sought for funds to facilitate the orderly rundown of the gas industry. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that the Government's energy statement on 23 July 1979 indicated that financial support would be made available to assist the orderly rundown of those gas undertakings that decided to close, and that the position of consumers needing to convert their appliances would also be taken into account. Under Sub-head A1, provision is sought for £7·1 million towards deficits incurred up to the end of March 1980. Under Sub-head A2, £1·2 million is sought for assistance to gas consumers faced with the cost of conversion to other fuels, and. £0·6 million towards the cost faced by the Housing Executive in converting its properties.
Moving on to the Votes of other Northern Ireland Departments, right hon. and hon. Members will have noted that an additional £9·2 million is being sought in Class V, Vote 1—housing services. The main increase in the housing Vote is in Sub-head A1, which provides for payments to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The increase is attributable to greater expenditure on the maintenance of the excutive's housing stock, resulting in a revised estimate of the housing grant, and to the continuing high level in the take-up of house improvements grants. The cash for the increase has been found from within the Housing Executive's capital expenditure programme, which is not financed from voted moneys.
In social security, the draft order incorporates the higher rates of benefit payable from 24 November 1980. The largest increases in provision sought as a result of this uprating are for supplementary benefits, for which an additional £4·3 million is included in Class X, Vote 2, and on child benefit and family income supplements, for which an additional £9·2 million and £1 million respectively is included in Class X, Vote 3. The increases reflect the application of national policy to the Northern Ireland social security system, based on the long-established principle of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in these matters.
I have referred specifically to the aspects of the draft order which I think are of prime importance. I am sure, however, that right hon. and hon. Members will wish to raise other matters and I am grateful to those who have given me advance notice of the points that concern them. I and my ministerial colleagues who are present will attempt to answer as many questions as possible at the end of the debate; those questions which remain unanswered will be dealt with in correspondence later in the usual way. I commend the draft order to the House.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: May I first thank all those hon. Members—including those who spoke last night on the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order


1980—who seemed to be passing votes of confidence in me. I hope that I shall be able to live up to all the things that have been said about me.
I know full well what a difficult task we have before us in Northern Ireland, but I also know what an interesting task it is and how nice and hospitable are the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland. I am looking forward to renewing some of my old acquaintances and renewing a lot of friendships that I made during my sojourn in Northern Ireland.
But before I start on the main part of my speech on the order, I should like to make the strongest possible protest, on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, at the way in which the Prime Minister has treated the people of Northern Ireland. The complete insensitivity shown towards the people of Northern Ireland over the last two days has amazed me. I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, on many occasions throughout yesterday and today, has made representations to the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House.
The communiqué refers to the "extremely constructive and significant" meeting that the Prime Minister had with Mr. Haughey in Dublin on 8 December. The House will recollect that the Prime Minister refused the request to make a statement to the House and played down the importance of the meeting. It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those on the other side in the talks are not treating the matter so lightly. I understand that the matter is to be debated in their Parliament tomorrow.
I trust and hope that the Prime Minister has taken note of this and will show the same consideration to this House—and to the people of Northern Ireland, who matter most—by explaining the meaning of some of the phrases used in the communiqué. From my experience, I feel that there are one or two phrases in the communiqué that are open to a good deal of misrepresentation and will cause unnecessary fears among the people of Northern Ireland. Some of the phrases in the communiqué should have been looked at a little more carefully—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are on a reasonably narrow point. There are 32 heads under which he can address the House. It does not seem to me that he is choosing any one of those heads at the moment.

Mr. Concannon: I am only reiterating what happened yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time, when—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that everything that happened yesterday is of great interest, but today we are discussing the matters in the order that is before the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the order that is before the House, there are many matters that were mentioned in the communiqué from Dublin.
Are you really saying that we are not to be allowed to discuss those matters in that context? I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to page 5 of the order, where it says that there is a large sum of money to be expended on "Information Services". It is about time we

had some information. The matter of gas is also related to this question. I should like you, Sir, to give us a ruling now on whether we are to be permitted to discuss, under all these headings, the new proposal of the British Government to have joint studies with the Irish Republic in order to bring about some overall policy between the Republic and the United Kingdom on these issues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the main point, the hon. Gentleman is restricted to discussing the increase that is contained in the order. Apart from that, I do not think that I can help him at the moment.

Mr. Concannon: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that one of the reasons why a statement has not been made is that the Prime Minister said that hon. Members would be able to
cross-examine my right hon. Friends as they wish."—[Official Report, 9 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 1183.]
I understood that a further reason was that, this being a Northern Ireland day, it was one of the days on which we would be able to cross-examine the Ministers as we wished.
A good deal of the communiqué relates to matters of security, housing, energy and cross-border studies within Northern Ireland. I should like to support the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in asking for a ruling now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we are not allowed to raise these matters, all the reasons for the Prime Minister's refusal to make a statement are open to question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept what I have already said about this order. When we get to order No. 3, he may find that he is on better ground.

Mr. Concannon: I should like to take the matter further, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the debate on the order now before the House lasts until 10 pm, we shall then have only one and a half hours in which to debate order No. 3. If we had known that these matters related to order No. 3, I think that the Opposition would have asked for an extension of the time allowed for the debate on that order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The business of the day has been organised in a particular way. It is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that there is plenty of time in which to discuss order No. 3 if he manages to say what he wishes to say on orders Nos. 1 and 2 in a reasonably brief period.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister, when presenting the Estimates at the Dispatch Box, specifically referred to the question of energy. Energy in Northern Ireland, as anywhere else, means coal, gas and electricity. According to the communiqué—supplemented by what the Prime Minister said yesterday—the whole question of energy was discussed, including electricity and a gas pipeline. Surely it must be in order to discuss these matters in that context.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will look at Class II, Vote 3 of order No. 3, he will find that it is included in what I have already said.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not have this matter clear in my mind and I should like you to clarify it. It will be useless for my colleagues to stay in the House today if we are not to be given the opportunity to deal with the matters that have


been mentioned in the communiqué and are part of the order. You have ruled, Sir, that under order No. 3, which has to do with terrorism, we could discuss these matters, but surely the point is that it is not only the question of security that is mentioned in the communiqué. There is some mention of all the matters which come into the order. Therefore, surely we are entitled to mention them and to deal with them under this order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have already indicated, the hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity when we get to order No. 3; and when we get to it is a matter that is within the control of hon. Membets. If the hon. Gentleman can relate the matters in the communiqué directly to the natters which are in this order, that will be in order as will.

Mr. Concannon: Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we are allowed a little latitude, I trust that on certain parts of the Votes we shall be able to slip in a question or two to the Ministers. I trust that they will be available and willing and ready to answer those questions, or to send us a letter some time next week.
I should like to pay my tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), for the work that he has done on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who has been involved with Northern Ireland for three years, which is well above the norm for the job.
I shall be devoting most of my speech to economic natters—Class II, Vote 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will, when he replies, deal with welfare, health and other services. Agriculture and various other areas were fully debated on the last occasion, and I am sure that during this debate, in view of the communiqué and what was said about cross-border studies and so on, agriculture and other areas will again figure largely in our discussions.
In the debate on the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, the Minister said that it would be necessary to redistribute public expenditure resources in Northern Ireland to take account of new demands which had emerged. He referred to the
need to shift the balance of resources in the direction of the economic programmes including industrial development.
That was the position that was taken in the very early days of the Labour Government, when the level of unemployment was much lower than it is today, but I hasten to add that that figure gave me no joy. I always thought that it was too high and that it was a tragic waste of human resources. On my office wall in the manpower Department I had two charts which were updated regularly. One gave the figures and the percentages for unemployment in both Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The other chart gave the figures for unemployment around the Province. I do not know what has happened to the charts or what has happened to the wall, but I have a sneaking feeling that either the charts were put on the floor or that the roof of my office had to be raised.
The priorities for expenditure in those days were jobs, houses arid energy, which were always fought for by the Northern Ireland Ministers, and, on hindsight—but only on hindsight—with a great deal of success. The Treasury Ministers of that day treated Northern Ireland with sympathy and understanding. They accepted our

arguments that increased public expenditure on the economic front was necessary, and we were sheltered from the various cuts, except on the odd occasion when we had to make a token cut.
On 18 July, the Minister said that the programme should be
looked at now in the Eight of demands that are now coming upon the industrial development sector. There has been a substantial increase in interest this year, as against last year."—[Official Report, 18 July 1980; Vol. 988, c. 1916–17.]
The Minister quoted the figure of a 29 per cent. increase in first-time visits to Northern Ireland by potential investors, and he said that the Government were prepared to support traditional efforts to create and maintain employment.
That pledge of support by the Government seems to have come too late for the Province, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde pointed out in the same debate, the unemployment figures had reached 73,000 or 12·7 per cent. of the population for Northern Ireland as a whole. There were depressing figures for Strabane, Newry, Dungannon and Cookstown. In that debate, various guesses were made about future unemployment in Northern Ireland, including one from an often consulted firm that by 1982 about 85,000 people would be out of work in the Province. To my amazement, and to everyone else's amazement, the figures for November 1980 have already rocketed to 91,686—15·9 per cent. of the working population—the highest total ever recorded in Northern Ireland.
We have to ask—no, we have to demand—from the Government their intentions for employment in Northern Ireland, and we have to ask how this order will help to stop the figures continuing upwards instead of bringing down this tragic and unacceptable level of unemployment.
In a part of the United Kingdom that has the worst housing stock, what sense does it make to have over 20,000 unemployed construction workers—7,000 more than a year ago? Labour Members warmly welcome any increase in the provision of funds for the impoverished housing services sector in Northern Ireland. However, we wish to spell out in clear terms that this additional sum is simply not sufficient to make any noticeable impact on the grave and worsening problems in the Province. It has been argued by Ministers that public expenditure per head on housing in Northern Ireland continues to run at a higher level than in Britain, despite the cuts. To say that one and a half times as much is spent on housing in Northern Ireland is no justification for making meagre additions to the housing budget. It is widely recognised that the need for funds is probably four times as great in the Province as it is in the rest of Britain.
Recent housing surveys in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom show graphically that there is a wide disparity in housing needs. The surveys demonstrate conclusively that housing standards at the bottom of the scale, both in Northern Ireland generally and in Belfast particularly, are still substantially behind those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Those figures show that Northern Ireland today is still in the position in which England found itself 15 years ago. Today, about 14 per cent. of the houses in the Province are unfit to live in, whereas only 4 per cent.—that is 4 per cent. too much—of English houses share that same dubious distinction.
The Housing Executive has made some progress in reducing the number of houses that are unfit to live in. The


figure was 20 per cent. in 1974, but the cuts of last year have interrupted that process. Unless adequate finance for housing is made soon, the ageing and deterioration of the housing stock will inevitably lead to an upsurge in the level of unfitness. Any savings that are made in the housing budget in the short term are no more than false economies which will have serious ramifications for the future of the housing stock in Northern Ireland.
If the House has any doubt about the poor state of housing in Northern Ireland, let me dispel that doubt by passing on a few statistics from those recent housing surveys. They show that 24·2 per cent. of households in Belfast have no inside flushing toilet. The highest comparable figure for England is 11·1 per cent. in Liverpool. In the whole of the Province, 15·4 per cent. of households have no bathroom, whereas the figure for households in England in 1979 was 4·7 per cent. In addition, one in every five households in Northern Ireland lacks at least one basic amenity compared with the lower figure of one in every 10 households in England. All the evidence in those housing surveys points to one incontrovertible conclusion: housing needs in Northern Ireland far outweigh those on the mainland. There can, therefore, be no rational argument in favour of parity in expenditure or cutting the housing budget, as was done last August.
I should also like to express my deep concern about the future funding of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Of necessity, house building is spread over several years. New houses on which preparatory work starts in 1981 would normally not be paid for until 1983–84. The Housing Executive needs to know its budget probably three years in advance in order to plan its programme. At present, with cuts in the housing budget and now this grant to fund primarily the increased deficit of the executive for 1980–81, there is no indication that additional funds will be made available to enable a substantial house-building programme to go ahead. If the restoration of adequate funds is delayed for too long, the professional and technical resources of the building industry will be in disarray and the housing stock of Northern Ireland will become even more a relic of the past than it is at present. Further, all the ground that was gained by the executive over the last 10 years will be lost. Housing conditions will quickly deteriorate to a point even lower than the present unacceptable level.
In his introduction to the 1980 annual report of the Housing Executive, the executive chairman, Mr. Brett, outlined a programme of investment for the next 10 years. He said that if the housing stock was to be preserved in a state fit for people to live in, 5,000 homes would need to be built each year and at least 1,200 rehabilitations would have to be performed annually in housing action areas.
This Vote of £9 million, and the chopping around of the Housing Executive budget, to which we have been witness this year, would suggest that the necessary programme that has been outlined is no more than a pipe dream. Our message is clear. Much more money must be allocated to housing services in Northern Ireland in the near future if sufficient shelter is to be provided for the people in the Province in the next decade and beyond. The Government are creating a problem that will have dire, long-term consequences for all the citizens of Ulster.
At present, there are 20,000 people on the waiting lists for a home in Northern Ireland and an equally significant number of people are waiting to be rehoused. Every day, families in need, living in overcrowded conditions, have to face up to the fact that they cannot have a new home, even though their need is recognised by the housing authorities. More than two-thirds of the pointed applicants on the Belfast waiting list are in genuine and urgent need of rehousing. Will the Minister tell the House when he envisages that the housing sector budget will be sufficiently improved so that those and many other people in the Province may have a real prospect of decent homes and conditions in which to raise their families?
Further, will the Minister inform the House of his intentions concerning the future financing of housing services? If this paltry figure of £9 million is to set the precedent for future Supplementary Estimates, it is a matter of concern to the House.
One also has to consider the reallocation of resources in Class II, Vote 1. Why has the provision for factory building to be cut by £5.2 million and industrial development publicity by £700,000? One must consider carefully the reallocation of resources because, in my view, the answer to Northern Ireland's economic problems is not to cut public expenditure in line with the rest of the United Kingdom and then to try to reallocate what is left for the various reallocation Votes. The result will be increased unemployment in certain areas, but mainly in construction.
The most effective way to start to bring down unemployment, if it is not too late, is to increase expenditure and to make a bigger and broader effort to attract and to hold on to existing firms. In my experience, it was much easier to hold on to the jobs in Northern Ireland than to try to find and pay for the jobs to come into Northern Ireland. They complemented each other. It had to be done. At that time, one seemed to be running very fast just to stand still.
There will be those who say "Yes, but Northern Ireland already receives an additional 35 per cent. per capita over and above the rest of the United Kingdom." That 35 per cent.—one can consider this with some sympathy—can now be accounted for in various ways. Water costs and the electricity subsidy are accounted for in the overall figures. I think that I am right in saying that these are not covered in the figures for the rest of the United Kingdom.
The other additional amounts consist of the higher numbers in receipt of unemployment benefit—unemployment is at present running at twice the rate of the rest of the United Kingdom and is rising fast—and family income supplement. Many of those in lower paid jobs have to depend on family income supplement, and quite a few are possibly too dependent on social security. Most public housing costs in Northern Ireland are higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Will the Minister explain how the order fits into the overall strategy on economic policy? Will he also explain the Government's economic policy for Northern Ireland? All the evidence of the past 18 months points to a lack of policy.
Will the Minister also enlighten us, as the Prime Minister will not, on paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Monday's communiqué as it implies that there will be new and closer co-operation on energy, transport, communications, cross-border economic developments and security? It was agreed that further improvements in those and other areas


should be pursued. There must be some thinking on these lines on both the economic and employment fronts. I know that I am probably asking a lot, but Opposition Members have to ask questions so that they may have full and ready answers.
Will the Minister give us some idea of what these talks on closer co-operation will mean to the economy of Northern Ireland? Surely the studies on economic developments in the cross-border areas will have an effect on the agricultural vote. Farming represents a sizeable chunk of industry in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: I was looking forward to hearing front the right hon. Gentleman the view of the Opposition on the largest single item in the Votes before the House tonight, namely, the incremental subsidy to Mr. De Lorean. As the Labour Government launched that curious venture, I should like to hear the official Opposition view on its progress.

Mr. Concannon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is asking the right person about this matter.
Northern Ireland Ministers do not carry only one brief or portfolio. They are possibly a little lucky in that respect, because they can view the picture in its entirety—much more so than if they were the head of just one Department. If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing the theme that this venture was bad for Northern Ireland, I stick to my view that it was good for Northern Ireland. The atmosphere and confidence in Northern Ireland at that time helped considerably in bringing the De Lorean project to Northern Ireland. One can say that it was partly political. Admittedly it was.
If Mc hon. Gentleman is quibbling about the £50 million, I assure him that from the day of that announcement Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and its taxpayers started reaping the benefits of that decision. Perhaps the Department of Commerce did not, but I think that the future figures for Northern Ireland will prove that.
One has only to consider the damping down of what was happening in that area at that time and the confidence of the people. They had Ministers who were prepared to take a chance on bringing jobs into that area. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman represents an area with 25 to 30 per cent. unemployed. If he does, he will have been chasing Ministers to get the De Lorean project into his constituency. That was possibly one reason why some people quibbled about this venture.
No one denies that it was a risky venture, but it was something for which we had been looking for a long time. There is a great chance that the De Lorean factory will succeed. It will have to ship 30,000 cars to America. That will revitalise the Belfast harbour or whichever harbour is used. It has already had the spin-off effect of additional work being brought to Northern Ireland. If anyone wants to complain about bringing additional work to Northern Ireland, let him stand up and tell me that the 16 per cent. rate of unemployment there is acceptable. I never accepted 10 per cent. That is why I think that every Department of Commerce Minister—I include the Minister of State, who, I know, races around on the self-same job—would be chasing all the footloose jobs around the world. They would bring in any sort of job that would give confidence to the people of Northern Ireland.
I stick to my proposition that we started reaping the benefits of the De Lorean project on the day that the

announcement was made. People employed by De Lorean are not included in the 91,000 unemployed. They are earning wages; they are not on social security; they are paying their taxes and making their contribution to the economy.
The Minister, who took over one of my jobs—commerce—has tackled the job with gusto and has to my knowledge followed up every lead. Probably I was more fortunate than he was, in that the Treasury at that time had no boffins chasing after monetarist theories and was particularly helpful to me in my job in Northern Ireland.
I know the frustration of trying to sell Northern Ireland. It reminds me of the story of the gentleman who tried to sell caravan holidays on the Normandy beaches in 1944. Sometimes we felt that frustration keenly. It all depended on what was happening in the world, and in Northern Ireland.
An industrial performance location in Northern Ireland has a lot to offer the investor, private or public. Can the Minister give the jobless some hope? Will he give a progress report on the 29 per cent. increase in first-time inquiries? Are those inquiries slowly turning into jobs? Ministers have been in office for 18 months. They must know how significant jobs are in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that I have to dwell on this subject. However, there are 91,686 reasons for doing so. I should have thought it impossible to do so much damage in 18 months. Factories and companies have left Northern Ireland or have cut back to next to nothing. When I was in office, I thought those companies were so well established that they were part of the Northern Ireland scene. Carrickfergus, which was a busy little town on the side of a loch, must be a ghost town. It is easier and cheaper to maintain existing jobs than to chase after new jobs. I plead with Ministers to tackle the problem more effectively. If it costs a bit of money to keep hold of a job and to keep people in work, it is well worth it and cheap at the price.
Industrial decline has an effect on energy. It makes nonsense of energy forecasting and planning. We all know what Kilroot means, or meant, to Northern Ireland. Energy projections were made as far ahead as the year 2000. They were based on various assumptions but did not take account of the recession. In addition, we face the problem of the interconnector. Was that subject discussed with the Irish Government on Monday? I hope that the Minister will enlighten us about anything that was said. If the matter involves security, the Minister need only say so.
I hope that no one will question the electricity tariffs. At one time, the price of energy and electricity was a bone of contention, particularly as regards industrialists and possible investors in Northern Ireland. One had to try to reduce the exorbitant prices. A factory in Belfast paid a very different price from that paid by a factory in Manchester. I was repeatedly asked whether I could do something about it. The cost to industrial users can be kept down to the rate found in the rest of the United Kingdom by means of subsidies. That is the only way to induce people to come to Northern Ireland.
Class III, Vote 1, involves the gas industry. That has always involved a tricky decision. One could agonise over it. If the Labour Party had taken the decision that the Government have taken, we should have paid for the conversions. The Labour Government did not consider paying 50 per cent. of the conversions for domestic consumers and 30 per cent. of the conversions for


industrialists. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why the Government took that decision and whether they did so for any reason other than that of saving money.
I hope that the Minister will say more about Northern Ireland's energy requirements. As regards the major review of electricity arrangements—as explained in the explanatory memorandum—I hope that the Minister will consider the total energy requirements of Northern Ireland and will come forward with an energy policy that covers the whole field of energy supply.
During the past 10 years, one bone of contention has been that of energy supply and cost. It would be to the advantage of the House if the Minister were to say something about that. Perhaps he will enlighten us about some of the economic measures mentioned in the communiqué. Indeed, I should be delighted if he did so.
I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde to tackle some of the other problems. I thank those who have generously complimented me on the work that I did in Northern Ireland. I commiserate with the Government Front Bench. Ministers have had 18 months in office and are coming to the end of their stints. I do not know who will be the continuity man to the end of the Government's period of office, but, whoever he is, I wish him no harm.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the debate began there was an exchange, Mr. Deputy Speaker, between you, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman and me. It concerned the relationship between this debate and certain matters that arise from the Dublin summit. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is sitting on the Front Bench. I understand that he will not take part in the debate, although he is the only person who can tell us anything about these matters. Hon. Members, particularly those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, find themselves at a grave disadvantage.
The communiqué issued in Dublin covered a broad spectrum. Section 6 of the communiqué states that special consideration will be given to the totality of relationships within these islands. The communiqué then covered a range of issues, including new institutional structures, citizenship, security, economic co-operation and measures to encourage mutual understanding.
Many of those subjects are included in the order before us. I do not understand how a Minister can give a proper answer to the debate if he is unwilling to tell us how Northern Ireland will be affected by the proposed joint studies or who is to take part in those studies. Today, the Secretary of State informed me that Ministers are to take part in them. Therefore, they should know something about them. As a representative from Northern Ireland, I feel that I and all hon. Members are entitled to know how the joint studies will be set up and which parts of the Northern Ireland economy will be involved. We also have a right to know what the Secretary of State has in mind.
I shall relate many of the subjects covered by the order to that communiqué. Because it is important to Northern Ireland. Section 4 acts as an introduction to section 6. It tells us that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic are inextricably linked and that the full development of those links has been strained by the division and dissent that exists in Northern

Ireland. I take it that that refers to people in the Unionist community because they dissent from unity with the Irish Republic. They have been called the dividers of Ireland. The group which met in Dublin accepts the need for proposals and policies to achieve peace, reconciliation and stability. Joint studies will cover the total responsibility of what we are discussing today.
I turn to Class I of the order, which deals with agriculture. Agriculture is Northern Ireland's basic industry. The industry employs more people than any other. It employs about 55,000 people or 10 per cent. of the work force. Another 3·5 per cent. of the work force is employed in ancillary industries. Agriculture is the most important industry in Northern Ireland. However, it is a diminishing industry. It has come under immense pressure and is coming under even greater pressure.
About 20 years ago, 50,000 holdings were in operation. The number has been reduced to 32,000. Because of the pressures on agriculture, only 16,500 holdings are capable of providing full time employment for their owners. These figures were supplied by the Ulster Farmers Union. It is clear that the agriculture industry is under intense pressure.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that it was easier to save a job than to create one and that some of the money spent on creating jobs should be directed to the preservation of jobs. Let us consider the money that is being used to create jobs at the De Lorean plant. I hope that the project is a success because it is essential. The project is needed to provide employment. It is not in West Belfast but in South Antrim. Both sections of the community are benefiting from the employment at De Lorean. I hope that it will continue.
The money that is needed to guarantee or secure one job at De Lorean could be used to save jobs in the farming community. In that way we could save a large number of jobs in the farming community—far more than the jobs that are being created by the De Lorean project. I understand the divisions and I know that industry must be served. However, the House must take into account that Northern Ireland agriculture is important. It has been a viable industry and there is a market for its produce. It needs to be supported.
I attended a meeting of farmers in Fivemiletown the other evening. The farmers' spokesman said that he and his colleagues joke about the Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland. They call him "The no-money Minister". Every time that he goes to their meetings, all he can say is that he is sorry and that he sympathises with their important case but that he has no money to give them. I understand the burden that is upon the Minister. I understand how he is limited in finance. However, is he prepared to preside over the ruination of a large part of the farming industry, especially intensive farming?
Some action could be taken and some money could be made available to the farming industry if the Minister took certain action. There are a number of less favoured areas in Northern Ireland, according to EEC criteria. I asked the Minister:
in view of the completion of the Northern Ireland survey in relation to the possible extension of the area covered by the EEC less favoured areas directive, if he will ensure that application is made to the EEC for the extension so that further areas of Northern Ireland which are suitable only for the production of cattle and sheep might be included."—[Official Report, 4 November 1980, Vol. 991, c.530.]


The EEC provides a grant for less favoured areas. If an application is made and processed before 1 January, such areas will qualify for that grant. However, the Minister is not prepared to make such an application. He says that he will wait until the survey covering the whole of the United Kingdom is complete. I protest in the name of Northern Ireland farmers about that iniquitous decision. It is a scandal. EEC money is available. It is being held back because the survey is not complete in England.
Agriculture in England and Ulster cannot be compared. It is of a different type and involves a different system. It is a ridiculous decision. Northern Ireland could benefit and part of the industry could be saved. Yet the Government have made a deliberate decision. They have said to Northern Ireland "Join the queue, and when the survey for England is complete we shall be prepared to make an application". I press on the Minister the urgent need to change that iniquitous decision.
Steps have been taken by all the parties to see the Minister. I understand that the leader of the Official Unionist Party raised this matter in the House. I was absent, but a colleague told me about it. We should have a decision today. The Minister responsible for agriculture in Ulster must agree to meet a deputation of hon. Members and farming representatives so that we can discuss the case. Ulster politicians disagree about many matters, but there is no disagreement about that.
The Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland does not attend the Brussels meetings. On 30 October, I asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
how many times since coming to office the Minister in the Northern Ireland Office responsible for agriculture has attended the EEC Council of Ministers, along with the Minister of Agriculture, in order to promote and protect the interests of Northern Ireland's agriculture industry.
It is vital that when Northern Ireland matters are discussed at Brussels the Minister responsible is available.
The Secretary of State's answer was:
The promotion and protect, on of the interests of Northern Ireland agriculture in the EEC are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My right hon. Friend is always fully briefed on Northern Ireland agricultural matters. In addition, when there is a particular Northern Ireland interest at the Council of Ministers, my right hon. Friend is accompanied by a senior official from the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 30 October 1980; Vol.991, c.365–66.]
So the Minister is not there.
If the Minister of Agriculture is sitting at the Brussels table and a matter comes up that affects Northern Ireland, how much weight will he place on the representations of a senior official? But if a Government colleague who knows the situation in Northern Ireland is there and says "We cannot wear that. This is a decision that will be detrimental to the future of agriculture in Northern Ireland", we can be sure that the input at Brussels will be a proper input, Even though the Minister is small in stature, I know that he carries a fairly heavy clout. I want him to be there—not all the officials from the Northern Ireland agriculture office, Dr. Young and the lot of them. With all their influence, they do not have the power to persuade the Minister. The Minister would be more persuaded by a colleague who would tell him in no uncertain terms that certain matters could not be worn in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland depends largely on beef and daily herds. It is sad to report that one-third of the breeding herds

there have now vanished. That means that agriculture is in a serious situation. In France, there has been an 8 per cent. rise in the breeding herds. While our farmers are going to the wall, Continental farmers are finding an easy market in our country. I understand that it is not easy to build up the strength of the breeding herds. If they are lost, they are lost for many years. I ask the Minister what he intends to do about this problem.
I pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that matters would be made easier for members of the fanning community in Northern Ireland if they could spread their taxes over a five-year period. I received the answer that on no account would he consider that. Had that spread been made, it would have considerably helped the industry.
The Minister will know the sad position of the poultry industry, which has almost gone. He will know also the sad position of our pig industry. At that meeting the other night, I was informed by those who should know that if it continues to decline it will produce only enough to supply the home market. When that happens, the writing will be on the wall for the pig industry.
We should like a clear statement from the Minister tonight about what steps he will take to save agriculture in Northern Ireland, especially the pig industry and intensive farming. We want to know what his policy is to be and what role he will play in the joint talks. Those of us who follow the news know that 40,000 enraged farmers marched in the South of Ireland last Saturday, protesting about the sad condition of their industry. We certainly do not want to be linked with another waning agriculture industry. The time has come for the Minister to tell us what he will do.
One item in Class II is expenditure on subsidies to electricity tariffs. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what role he will play and what help subsidies will give the people of Northern Ireland.
There is one matter which I must underline, because it affects my constituency. When will a decision be taken about the Kilroot power station? Has the decision already been taken or has it been postponed? With respect to the right hon. Member for Mansfield, we in Northern Ireland are somewhat against him, because he made a decision about the gas industry but delayed telling us what it was. Perhaps it was a good political achievement, in that when it was announced he did not have to carry the burden.
We want to know the decision about Kilroot. Is there to be a conversion from oil firing to coal firing? One deputation goes to the Minister and gains the clear impression that there is to be no conversion and that the station's present extent is to be the final extent, for a long time. Then, other deputations to the Minister get an entirely different message, to the effect that the decision has still to be made.
Will the Minister go for the large EEC grant that is available? Is he aware that if he does he will create a great deal of employment in Northern Ireland for the conversion? Does he realise that GEC in Larne or some other heavy engineering firm will be able to get a sizeable contract? Is he prepared to tell us today what he intends to do, or will he again put the matter on the long linger and not tell us what the future of Kilroot is to be?
There is a further matter. The contractors who were building Kilroot were under contract, as were their employees. What compensation will they receive? This is an important matter concerning a contract which was


signed, sealed and delivered but which is now being cut off in the middle. It would be a crying shame if the contractors got compensation and the employees did not. Will the Minister act on the representations that have been made to him to set up an umbrella organisation over which he can preside and meet all the contractors and representatives of the trade unions? They can get together and be in on the severance negotiations on the termination of the contract. These men, who were assured that they had jobs for five years, have now had those jobs cut off. They need a promise of help. The Minister must not drag his feet but must come up with an answer.
Under Class III there is a reference to
the orderly run-down of the gas industry".
I laugh at that expression. I do not think that even yet the Minister can lay on the table a blueprint and tell us "This is how the industry will be run down." The right hon. Member for Mansfield rightly said that compensation of 50 per cent. and 30 per cent. for consumers would not do. Is it a fact that those who continue to use gas, by going on to bottled or liquid gas, will receive no compensation? We must have a clear decision from the Minister. It would be very unfair to say "Go on to electricity and we shall give you some compensation, but if you keep your gas appliances and have them adapted for use with bottled or liquid gas you will receive nothing." That would be a wrong decision, which would have to be opposed in the House. The Minister should tell us exactly what he will do.
Those who use gas in Northern Ireland are usually the poorer people. It is said that the Government will give compensation to people on supplementary benefit or family income supplement. But some people do not receive the benefit or supplement because they are just over the line, by a few pounds or even a few pence. Therefore, they will receive no compensation.
What is
the orderly run-down of the gas industry"?
Surely it would mean everyone receiving full compensation. If people are changing to electricity, through no fault of their own, they should be helped by the Government to buy the necessary appliances. It is dangerous to have only one energy source—electricity. Evidently, the Government want to put all our energy eggs in the one electricity basket. We already have over-capacity.
The interconnector has been mentioned. The Dublin Government say that it is not their fault that we do not have it. The Minister says that it is not his fault. Whose fault is it? If we cannot have one interconnector, let us have four or five. If the IRA blows one up, let us keep the supply going. The Republic needs light. I am all for giving that dark country light. Therefore, we should go on with this important job. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about that matter.
Why can we not have the pipeline? I am sure that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) will deal with this matter. I see no reason why, now that the facts are on the table, the Minister should continue with his decision. He should stand up like a man—I believe that he is a man—and say "I made a mistake" or blame his officials or his counterpart across the way. I do not care who the Minister blames. If he wants to blame me, let him do so, but let us have that gas pipeline. That is what is important to the people of Northern Ireland.
Under Class IV, I should like to ask the Minister why the Heysham-Belfast roll-on/roll-off service is to be closed. The unions tell me that night after night some of the containers have to be left on the quayside. They say that enough work is being supplied for that service, yet it is to be axed as well. I do not understand that. If there is plenty of work, and some of the commodities sometimes have to be left on the quayside, surely that service can be kept going. I should like the Minister to make a statement about that.
I see under Class VI that there is a small amount for sewerage and related services. Can the Minister comment on that? The schemes that were proposed for the rural districts, essential schemes for sewerage, water and other services, should have been proceeded with. Why should there be such a drastic cutback in the elementary amenities to which every family is entitled in the twentieth century? Will the Minister tell us what he proposes to do about the matter?
I should like to dwell on teacher training and the controversy about it, but I have spoken for long enough. I wonder when the Minister will be able to tell us what decision he has made and the basis for it.
Class XI includes the expenditure of the Central Secretariat, including the expenses of information services. Today, all Members of the European Assembly received a large package from the secretariat. A certain Mr. Blaney is to initiate a debate in the Parliament next week on the H-block protest, the hunger strikes. What is happening about them? The Secretary of State told us today that a high-ranking official of the Northern Ireland Office had been in the Maze prison. We are told that he is there to read Hansard to the men concerned, that he is there to read the Minister's written reply to a question.
I understand that the men do not like their diet. I do not know how they will like this diet. I saw in one of the newspapers a cartoon of the Prime Minister saying to the Prime Minister of the Republic "Let us eat words." The men will have these words to eat; the meaning of the answer is to be explained to them. That is a very dangerous exercise, but I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland will accept that that is all that is happening. They will say "There is more in that than meets the eye. He is not just going in to read Hansard." I understand that the official will not only read Hansard but will answer questions on Hansard. This is nothing to do with the Dublin summit but is to do with a written answer. I say that this is the beginning of negotiations.
There are two things that can bring us out of the present trouble in Northern Ireland. One is the presence in the community of proper deterrents. It is well known in the House that in my opinion one of those deterrents should be capital punishment. We do not have it. The only other deterrent is proper imprisonment. Destroying that means telling the people that there will be no deterrent whatsoever. When we have no deterrent, that is the green light for the IRA to conquer, and that is just what is being given.
The information service tells us that of course the men are not getting political status. Nobody believes that the Government will ever say that they have political status. It can be called by whatever name the Government like. Let us say that we get the men off the hunger strike. Then, as time rolls on, there will be another hunger strike. This time it will be not for political status but for an amnesty. And so it will continue. The time has come for the


Government to give us the right information. What is happening? What are the Government about? Let them tell the people of Northern Ireland honestly and straightforwardly what they are doing.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Under Class II, Vote 3, and Class III, Vote 1, I wish to raise the question of the energy crisis in Northern Ireland. There can be no doubt that there is a crisis. It has already been mentioned in the debate, and concern has been expressed on both sides of the House. I am sorry to add to the torrent of depressing statistics given by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), but I must do so to put the matter in perspective.
In a reply given to me on 27 November by the Minister responsible for the Department of Commerce in Northern Ireland, I was told:
Domestic coal prices in Northern Ireland are towards the top end of the range of mainland prices. Piped gas in Northern Ireland costs two to four times as much as in Great Britain … Domestic electricity costs 24 per cent. more than the average in Great Britain.
I may need to repeat those figures to get them home to the House. People are paying four times more for their gas in Northern Ireland than is paid on the mainland. They are paying a quarter more for their electricity, and they are paying the top rate for solid fuel. Those are domestic prices.
On the industrial front, we learnt this week of a survey carried out in the British Isles and published in the latest edition of Utility Newsbriefs, a specialist monthly bulletin that regularly publishes tables of energy prices. The survey showed that light engineering users in Northern Ireland pay 4·72p per kilowatt hour of electricity. In the North-East of England, a comparable region, they pay 3·51p per kilowatt hour—a differential of 34 per cent. Is it any wonder that light engineering in Northern Ireland finds life extremely difficult? The survey also shows that commercial premises in Northern Ireland pay 4·49p per kilowatt hour. In the North-East of England it is 3·40p per kilowatt hour—a differential of 32 per cent.
Domestic users are paying substantially more across the range of fuels available to them, and industrial and commercial users are paying 30 per cent. more. It gives little consolation to me or to engineering and commercial undertakings in Northern Ireland to know that the Government hope to peg those prices. They do not intend to reduce the differential, only to peg it. It is a wonder that industry and commerce manage to exist ins Northern Ireland.
We must set the statistics against the background painted for us by the right hon. Member for Mansfield—namely, 16 per cent. unemployment and household incomes three-quarters of the national average. Let us compare two households, one in England and one in Northern Ireland. The net income in England is £100 per week, and the net income in Northern Ireland £75 per week. The household that is £25 worse off has to pay 25 pet cent. more for its electricity, the top rate for coal and four times as much for gas.It must be obvious that if it was possible to offer Northern Ireland comparable rates—the North-East of England would be comparable to Northern Ireland in social and industrial terms—that would be a boon both to individual households in Northern Ireland and to industry and commerce, which are struggling to survive.
I wish to deal with two issues tonight, electricity and gas, and will spend most of my time discussing gas. It is obvious that the only way to improve the energy situation is to talk in terms of parity. It does not matter whether Kilroot is converted to coal or whether phase 2 is built. That will give only temporary relief. The only way that Northern Ireland can achieve a fair deal is for the Northern Ireland electricity region to become part of the United Kingdom generating system. We should then have our electricity tariffs in line with the various regions on the mainland. If there is a 1p or 2p differential, we shall accept that in the way that it is accepted on the mainland.
How can it be justified that someone in Durham obtains electricity one-quarter cheaper than someone in Lurgan, Portadown or any other town in Northern Ireland? When examining the electricity position, we should not consider further subsidies but push ahead with the North Channel electricity interconnector.
Let no one tell me that I am arguing an integrationist line and that it is an umbilical link. The press and parliamentary reports in Dublin during the past year show that the Dublin authorities are pushing for the interconnector. They want it to be between the Republic and Great Britain. They know that there will be only one connector. If they have it, we shall not have it. If we want to bring down the price of our electricity to reasonable levels and to reduce our over-dependence on oil, we must be linked to a generating system that is predominantly coal-based. The interconnector must be built.
It is a tremendous disadvantage to have Mr. Gaston as the chairman of the Northern Ireland electricity service. Two or three years ago he had the nerve to ask people in Northern Ireland who were advocating an interconnector "Do people in Northern Ireland want to be dependent on Scotland for their energy?" The answer is "Yes." If his aim is to keep the Northern Ireland electricity service as a little home-grown electricity industry that he can preside over, dominate and charge whatever he wants, it is time that we got rid of him. I hope that he has changed his attitude to the interconnector. If he has not, he should see Mr. Colley, who is faced with the same attitude.
In a report in The Irish Times on 1 September, Mr. Colley is reported as saying:
when you do your sums, you will find that the kind of capacity and money needed to supply our requirements is enormous.
The Irish Times continued:
If the cross-Border interconnector were restored he would use it, not simply as before, for the convenience of a two-ways stand-by arrangement, but actually to supplement from Nothern Ireland's surplus the Republic's growing needs—a proposal which will meet with some resistance within the ESB.
The electricity supply board in the Republic wants to have its own little empire and safe jobs. Mr. Gaston should be told that there is a job for him in the electricity industry in Northern Ireland—on a par with the various area chairmen in Great Britain.
That is the only way to bring down the price of electricity. We should not be lumbered with massive subsidies thrown in our face by Conservative Members who wonder why the Government are pouring more money into Northern Ireland. We are entitled to energy on the same basis as the remainder of the United Kingdom. That does not mean that the North-South interconnector is not important. It is important. The Dublin authorities say that it is costing them £9 million a year while it is down. I suppose that we could benefit by a figure comparable to that. That would be useful. I do not know what the figure


would be, but we would have a substantial benefit of millions of pounds over the years that it has been down. It must be reinstated.
When the Minister met the Minister responsible for energy in the Republic, I wonder whether Mr. Colley was as blunt with him as he was with me when we discussed the issue.
He laid the blame fairly and squarely at the Minister's door. A heavy responsibility lies at the Government's door. I told Mr. Colley that a heavy responsibility lay with his Government also. Although the pylons were blown up in Northern Ireland, the bombs that blew them up were made in the Republic. If the interconnector is ever to be reinstated—and it should be reinstated urgently—it will require joint action and determination by both Governments.
However, the pylons have been blown up on the Northern Ireland side of the border. I drove along the border a few weeks ago and saw the damage. It will not be repaired by taking Mr. Gaston's attitude, which in the past has been one of "Softly, softly. Let us try to slip the boys in to fix it up and the terrorists will not see us." When I heard that, I thought that the man was an absolute fool. Could he really believe that he could slip teams of engineers into South Armagh in the Crossmaglen area to reinstate the interconnector and slip them out again and that all would be sweetness and light? It was only when I heard the story about the £30,000 that I began to understand. Against that background, it would be possible to slip the boys in, give the boys a backhander and slip them out again.
I am not abusing privilege when I name the person who is alleged to have been most actively involved in the blackmailing attempt. He was named in the Dublin Parliament last week. It is common rumour in Ireland that Cardinal Tomas O'Fiach, that distinguished constituent of mine, was involved in trying to set up the £30,000 deal. I am not using the protection of the House, because he has already been named in the Republic. Journalist after journalist approached me and demanded that I name him at Westminster. At first I said that I would not do it. I said that it would not be fair to do so. However, I started to put two and two together.
The interconnector runs from Tandragee to Maynooth, passing close to Crossmaglen. It was blown up outside Crossmaglen. Two or three years ago Cardinal O'Fiach was working in Maynooth and he had close connections in Crossmaglen. That is his home town. It was perhaps a natural thing for him to do.
There is an even more sinister aspect. The same journalist approached me and asked me whether I would like to name a prominent member of the staff of the Northern Ireland electricity service who might have been involved. I said that I could not believe that. However, I was given a name. I shall not use it because I have no proof. The name meant nothing to me. However, I checked it and I found that there was a prominent member of the electricity service who might be involved in this type of work.
One has to start putting two and two together. There is talk of a softly, softly approach. There is talk of slipping the boys in, getting the interconnector re-established and paying the boys off. What an incredible proposition if there was anything in it.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that he is liable to be charged with sectarianism. He has referred to the cardinal but has not named the employee in the electricity service. It would be fair to name both individuals.

Mr. McCusker: I am not naming the cardinal for the first time. He has been named already in another Parliament. That is on record. The other person has not been named anywhere else. If I obtain evidence that proves the allegation, I shall have no hesitation in naming him.
We need a joint approach by the two Governments to reinstate the interconnector. The work that is necessary must be done and, if necessary, there must be protection. If we took the same attitude to the railway line that runs between Belfast and Dublin, there would no longer be a line. The Provos have been trying to close it for 10 years. They have tried to do so year after year. They have used threats, bombs, intimidation and the destruction of vehicles. However, a determined Government wished to keep the line open and it was kept open. The same attitude must be taken with the interconnector. Let us get on with it and forget about the £30,000 deal.

Mr. Wm. Ross: If the link-up with electricity and gas is between the Republic and Great Britain, is it not a fact that all responsibility for maintaining the link across the border will rest upon this place and upon Her Majesty's Government, whereas if it runs through Northern Ireland the responsibility will be placed upon the Irish Republic? Is not that a good reason for ensuring that the link-up is between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mr. McCusker: That is precisely why we are fighting so hard to get the interconnector across the North Channel.
It has been suggested that the gas industry is running down. We are told that money is being used to ensure that there is an orderly rundown. I have never accepted that the industry is running down. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Mansfield is in his place. He was much maligned when it was suggested that he was instrumental in closing down the industry. He merely shelved the decision, if we are to believe recent press reports.
On 2 October the Northern Ireland Economic Council stated:
The public expenditure costs of a gas pipeline could be substantially lower than costs to the public purse of closing down the gas industry.
It has made that assertion repeatedly and has backed it up with hard facts. That is the view that is set out in the detailed Coopers and Lybrand report. The Department of Commerce came to the same conclusion when the right hon. Member for Mansfield was a member of the Labour Government. I hope that he will confirm that. Fortunately, someone in the Department of Commerce began to question why the Department should take the rap for a political decision.
One of the most sickening aspects of the discussion that took place on sustaining the gas industry in Northern Ireland was that I had to listen to individuals with Northern Ireland accents damning those who were opposed to them. Clearly, the message was brought home to some of them, because they decided to wash their hands of the matter.
The report that the right hon. Gentleman shelved came to light last week. Apparently it was produced as a result


of the setting up of a working party at the request of the right hon. Gentleman. It came to three broad conclusions. It stated that natural gas, if it were to be available to Northern Ireland at prices similar to those in Great Britain, would provide substantial direct benefits to consumers. Secondly, it stated that a large part of the disadvantages suffered by the people of Northern Ireland could be attributed to the fact that the Province did not have, access to natural gas enjoyed by other regions of the United Kingdom and that the magnitude of the benefits that were likely to be available meant that the costs of piping and distributing gas to the Province were unlikely to be prohibitive. Thirdly, it concluded that it could prove to be a profitable exercise over a 20-year span.
That secret report is dated October 1978 and was pigeon-holed early in 1979 by the right hon. Gentleman. I can understand why he did that. Negotiations were taking Place at that time, and the report might have been a useful card to play. It was a card that I tried to play. I am convinced that I was dealing with honourable men when I tried to make my deal prior to the 1979 election. I doubt whether my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) is able to say that he was dealing with honourable men in 1979. If subsequent events are anything to go by, that must be so. If the Labour Government had been sustained, or if they had won the 1979 election, we might have had the pipeline.
It is good to know that the Department of Commerce backed the case for the pipeline. It is interesting that within a few weeks of coming to office the Minister made a quick decision to stop the project. It may be that he hoped that we would all go away. In fact, we commissioned a report from Coopers and Lybrand, a firm that has been used by successive Governments to evaluate such projects. It concluded that it was a viable proposition and would be beneficial to Northern Ireland.
I submitted the report to the Minister in July. He implied that within a matter of weeks he would give me his decision. That meant that he was not prepared to consider it. It was an indication that he would hold it for a few weeks and then say "We do not accept it." However, in October, after three months had elapsed and after some prompting, I received the Minister's response. He rejected the conclusions set out in the Coopers and Lybrand report.
The Minister gave me his reply on 7 October. That was his considered reply. It was only after that that I learnt that the body of which I am chairman was still paying Coopers and Lybrand to produce statistics that had been, requested by the Department of Energy before coming to any conclusion, and that the statistics had not been provided to the Department. We were still supplying those answers while the Minister was writing his answer to me. In fact, the Minister rejected the Coopers and Lybrand report before the Department of Energy in London had received the further information that it requested to enable it to make the decision. That shows how much thought was put into the matter.
We replied on 27 October and covered some of the points. The Minister came back to me on 6 November and we had a meeting. We discussed the decision to kill off the gas industry in Northern Ireland—a decision taken in July 1979, 14 or 15 months before the meeting.
We were confronted with a series of arguments about finishing the industry off that did not exist in 1979. One reason really shook us. The Minister's letter stated:

Rate of increse of transfer price of natural gas. The consultants assume that the basic transfer price of 23 pence per therm would increase by 3% per annum in real terms, both being oil-related figures. We would not dispute the base figure, but the Government's view based on most recent assessments is that oil prices will rise by 4% per annum in real team between now and the end of the century.
That was a world premiere. No one had been told that before. We learnt it in Belfast. The Minister told us that we were the first to know that the Government had reassessed the situation and that the energy costs would be based not on a 3 per cent. per annum increase in real terms but on a 4 per cent. increase. Professor Christopher Foster, an acknowledged expert in the field, was taken aback. He had never heard of that before. It added £30 million to the sums, which altered the balance of the argument.
As a result, I put down a question last week and received the reply yesterday. I asked the Secretary of State for Energy
when and why he revised upward his estimate of future real growth in energy prices to the end of the century from 3 to 4 per cent. per annum".
He replied:
My Department keeps prospects for energy prices under continuing review. In the case of oil there are considerable uncertainties both about the levels which prices might reach by the end of the century and the path which will be followed."—[Official Report, 9 December 1980; Vol. 995, c.538.]
There is no confirmation there that the Government have a fundamental decision about raising their estimate. It is rather the reverse. The answer suggests that there could be all sorts of variations and one could come to all sorts of different conclusions. It was not even an argument put forward in July 1979 when the decision was made.
Another argument pulled out of the hat concerned the cost of storing natural gas. It was said that if we were to get natural gas in Northern Ireland we should have to have a substantial storage capacity and it would cost 5p per therm to store it. Gas is sold to domestic consumers in London today at 16p per therm. In Northern Ireland we should have to store it in vast quantities which would cost 5p per therm. The House will not be surprised to know that that adds another £14 million or £15 million to the sums. It is once again applying to Northern Ireland conditions that do not apply in any other gas region in the United Kingdom.
We managed to winkle out one of the real reasons—the negative effects on the electricity supply industry. When the Government worked out their sums there, they added a further £51 million. Before we left the meeting in the Department of Commerce, the Minister was producing figures like a magician pulling white rabbits out of a hat. Millions of pounds were floating all otter the place.
Those were the justifications on which the Government decided to kill the gas industry in Northern Ireland, depriving consumers in Northern Ireland of their rightful share of a national resource in the North Sea, as we are told it is called. The decision will also throw another 1,000 people on the dole. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, it will put all our energy eggs in an oil-based basket. We know the consequences of that.
I still hope that the Minister will reconsider the decision on the North Channel. However, even if he does not, the industry can still be saved. The Republic has a supply of natural gas off Kinsale Head. The Minister was probably told last Friday that there is much more in that field than anticipated. The Republic's Minister for Energy says that there is enough in the field to meet the expected needs of


both the greater Dublin area and the greater Belfast area, which are the only two real markets for premium-priced gas in Ireland. The Minister in the Republic is keen to sell it. He knows that he will get a premium price in Belfast, and the Republic needs the money. I hope that this Government's Minister will seriously consider the proposal and will not resort to the old arguments. He should not start from the premise that we shall not have that gas.
He should not be hell bent on killing off the industry.
Unfortunately, the Minister has shown that he can find arguments to prove anything. If he starts from the premise that we can do something, perhaps we shall have a bit more success. That suggestion would make some sense of the communiqué issued from Dublin, for I do not understand the communiqué. Ulster Unionists have never objected to co-operation with the Republic along the lines that I have suggested. All that we have ever wanted is to live at peace and to trade with our neighbours. As the Minister knows, the trade balance is to their advantage by about 2 to 1. We do not object. That is the natural consequence of sharing an island with them. We want that situation to continue. We believe that it could be extended to this suggestion. I hope that the political implications from the meeting yesterday will not spoil the case for this sort of cross-border co-operation. It is the right sort of cross-border co-operation, as is the electricity interconnector.
The Minister should tear up the draft proposal to close the gas industry in Northern Ireland and give it a fair wind until all the possibilities are explored. Local exploration is taking place. Companies are drilling at this moment in Cavan and Fermanagh. One company has a licence for the Rathlin Basin. Irish Bridge, a local Belfast, concern, is interested in obtaining a licence for North Antrim. These companies are investing their own money in exploration. They are hoping to find gas or they would not be spending tens of thousands, if not millions, of pounds. Although they would be pleased, none of them expects massive gas finds. The finds will probably be only moderate—gas which could be exploited locally in a premium domestic market but which could not be exported. Those companies are only now beginning to wake up to what the Minister is doing. If he has the town gas industry killed in Northern Ireland by this time next year and moderate discoveries of gas are made, what can they do with it? They want the Minister to hold on. The wording of the order should perhaps be changed from £9 million
to facilitate the orderly run-down of the gas industry
to £9 million "to hold and sustain the gas industry", until such time as the Minister can make a proper evaluation of the options open to him.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The speech of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) deserves careful attention. I fully support what he said about the need to see the interconnector re-established. I was greatly heartened by his remarks about the sort of co-operation that Northern Ireland would like with the Republic. I hope that they will be heeded by the Government. They were extremely constructive.
I shall essentially confine my remarks to the Class II appropriations. First, I want to congratulate Harland and

Wolff and Short Brothers and Harland. This year, to my great delight, I was able to find both their annual reports in the Library. I have commented before that they were not there. Conceivably, my words will have reached those who run the companies.
However, there are essentially three nationalised industries, at least in terms of my remarks this evening, and I was very disappointed that, if those two companies, which depend so heavily on taxpayers' money, felt that we in the House should know about their trading abilities and financial arrangements, the third industry—the De Lorean car company—did not see any such need.
Although I may well be told by the Minister that De Lorean's financial structure is different from those of Harland and Wolff and Short's, without the vast amount of taxpayers' money that has been put into the company it would not currently exist or be contemplating bringing forward cars for sale next spring. Will the Minister have a word with Mr. De Lorean and tell him that it would be useful, even if we cannot have his report and accounts, at least to have a progress report on this costly venture?
Will the De Lorean DMC12 be shown at the New York motor show, or is it there this month? Some months ago the Minister told me in a parliamentary answer that it was planned to show the model at the New York show this year. Will that promise be fulfilled? Will the car also be available in Western Europe and the United Kingdom when it finally comes off the production line?
Is there any danger that either the DMC12 or its derivatives—we have heard Mr. De Lorean outline details of a passenger car that he has in mind—will compete with the Jaguar XJ40, which is one of the new models that British Leyland hopes to build if it is fortunate enough to get the £800 million to £1,000 million that we are told its corporate plan envisages? It would be incredible if taxpayers were asked to fund two competing car designs. In no way would that be the sort of competition that we in the Conservative Party so strongly advocate. Is there some co-ordination, co-operation or communication about Mr. De Lorean's proposals and British Leyland's intentions?
As I explained in our debate on the Industry Bill a few days ago, this country is in the curious position of having two nationalised car companies, two nationalised aircraft companies and two nationalised shipbuilding companies. Apart from British Aerospace, they are all making large losses. It is possible to argue that the circumstances of each of these companies are so different that the apparent contradiction of competition between them when they are all owned by the British taxpayer is not in fact a contradiction, because there was no other reasonable way of creating a structure that made sense. However, we on the Conservative side must think seriously about how far we intend to allow this strange competition to develop. Harland and Wolff is one of the possible victims of this type of competition.
The order adds another £8.2 million to what the company is to receive, although I am not sure—and I did not receive the explanatory memorandum—whether the £8·2 million is subsumed within the £42·5 million that the company has already received or whether it is an additional sum. I am told that it is the former.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on a sentence in the 1979 annual report which qualifies the trading loss of £24·4 million by stating that the figure is contributed to by


the failure of several of our major subcontractors to deliver components and complete their contractual obligations within stipulated times
and that this
resulted in helping to create the very serious trading loss"?
If that is the case, is Harland and Wolff covered by penalty clauses? If so, have they been invoked, and how much of the money has been recovered? Who are the major subcontractors which have put the company in this plight?
In the annual report, the chairman points out that the company has picked up two new orders from the BP Tanker Co. Ltd. for two ships of over 100,000 tons and orders from other shipbuilders for two engines. He says also that employment is running at 7,542, with a deficit for the year of £43,296,000 and an adverse balance carried forward of £105,875,000.
The company is in a difficult, if not totally unviable, economic position. My hon. Friend said on 1 July 1980 when he spelt out the details of the money that would be provided to the company that the Government stood behind the company's liabilities. What are those liabilities how? I am aware that there are unsecured loans covered by the Department of Commerce, which has agreed to advance to the company such sums as are required for carrying on its business up to a maximum of £90 million. However, it would be helpful to know exactly what liabilities the Government believe they might be facing.
Will the Minister say something about cc-operation between British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff, which, according to the annual report works smoothly? I have already mentioned competition between Harland and Wolff and British Shipbuilders. I remember, when the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was going through the House in 1977, the then Government telling as that it was better for Harland and Wolff to be free and flexible in negotiating in world markets. But does that argument still stand? How does co-operation betweem these two nationalised corporations work smoothly? What co-ordination of effort is there, and has there been any thought of installing a common director on both boards?
I turn now to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 13 November, when he described the diversification set-up which had been agreed upon. The concept of an independent diversification review was first mooted in July this year. In his November statement, my hon. Friend spelt out the terms of reference of the team which is to look into the possibilities of diversification for Harland and Wolff.
One of the members of the team is in fact the new chairman of the company. As I have not yet had the chance to do so, perhaps I may take this opportunity to wish him every success in his very difficult task.
The diversification envisaged in the terms of reference is clearly of far-reaching proportions. Yet I must say to my hon. Fried that there have been many other occasions when those running Harland and Wolff have been persuaded to look at the possibility of diversifying into other industrial activities. Indeed, a paper produced by the Northern Ireland Office in 1975, in outlining the problems facing the company as long ago as 1967, stated on page 8 that the problems of the yard were diagnosed as being of an organisational and commercial nature; management was untidy, there was a lack of effective budgetary control, the marketing side needed strengthening and energy was being dissipated on diversification.
I also well remember Mr. Dennis Wrangham, when he was chairman of Short Brothers and Harland, being advised by a Government report that that company should consider diversification.
I remember him saying to me that anyone who thought that one could diversify from being an aeronautical engineer one day to being a motor engineer, a civil engineer or a machine tool engineer next day did not really understand the nature and complexity of engineering. He said that the only way in which Short Brothers and Harland could diversify would be to buy companies in other diversified industries but that to turn its own talents in those directions was really beyond it—the cobbler should stick to his last.
With Mr. Wrangham's words ringing in my ears, I pass his comments on to my hon. Friend. While I wish the team success in looking at the possibilities of diversifying Harland and Wolff's activities, I think that my hon. Friend may find that Harland and Wolff's real future will continue to lie in shipbuilding and in creating engines for ships, and that if the cobbler departs from his last it may well be the last effort of that company.
Five years ago, Harland and Wolff employed a work force of about 9,000. That figure included manual workers and staff. It had an order book in double figures. Today, it employs rather more than 7,000. So far as I know, its order book consists of the two new ship orders referred to in the annual report. My hon. Friend may be able to tell me about other orders of which I am unaware. The company is also building two large marine engines. If it required a work force of 9,000 when its order book was in double figures, it is difficult to see how 7,400 people can be required when the order book is as thin as it is at present.
It seems to follow from that either that the yard is still grossly overmanned—I use those words with care, bearing in mind the very responsible speech of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) from the Opposition Front Bench, whom I also congratulate. He and I have often crossed swords in the past, but I wish him every success in his new appointment. I use my words with care because to hear the figures that he gave of the present unemployment situation in Northern Ireland is to make anybody who speaks of overmanning think and think again before using such words.
Nevertheless, it seems to me inescapable to recognise that Harland and Wolff is still overmanned and that, unless the company is able to pick up a rather larger share of the current shipping order book in the United Kingdom, further redundancies are inevitable. Of course, the diversification plans may bear fruit which I at least cannot imagine. I hope that that will be the case. But if that is not the case—I recognise that there is a slump in shipbuilding throughout the world—is it not possible for Harland and Wolff to do rather better in picking up new orders than has the case?
As I have said, the company has picked up two new orders this year. Yet up to September this year 78 ships had been ordered for the United Kingdom. Bearing in mind that those ships total over 1 million gross registered tonnes, for Harland and Wolff to have picked up only two of the orders, albeit for big ships, seems an unreasonably small proportion of what was available.
It is a matter not only of ships that were ordered for United Kingdom registration but of the ships that were ordered by the Ministry of Defence or by other public


sector organisations. There, no less than 12 new ships were ordered, but none, alas, is to be built by Harland and Wolff. In addition, there are to be 42 naval refit contracts, but none of those has gone to Harland and Wolff.
There may be very good reasons why the company should be ignored. It may be that some of the problems so skilfully outlined in the Northern Ireland Office paper to which I have referred—the problems of slippage in programmes, low productivity, delivery dates that are not met and poor management—are still, five years after that paper was written, bedevilling the company in the way it operates. But time is running out for the company and, indeed, for those who manage it if that situation still exists.
I wonder, therefore, whether closer links between the company and British Shipbuilders might produce a rather better share of what is available than the current situation, in which, as I have said, two nationalised companies apparently compete with each other for the comparatively small number of orders available.
Lastly, I refer to the engine side of the company. I profess no expertise in marine engineering or, indeed, in shipbuilding overall, but I cannot help wondering whether the engine side of Harland and Wolff will be able to survive for long on two orders. At a time when fuel economy and energy conservation are occupying the minds of shipowners, as of almost everybody else in the Western world, one wonders whether there is not a great opportunity for somebody to put a good deal of research and development into marine engineering towards producing an engine with the kind of economy figures that would attract those who are to build the next generation of ships.
Today, the concept of nuclear-powered merchant ships seems to have passed from the scene, but only 10 years ago the world was excited by the project. Yet we all know that the price of oil is escalating. It is rising bit by bit, month by month and year by year. It therefore seems to me that energy conservation for ships, as well as for everything else, is now a matter of priority. To have the expertise that Harland and Wolff possesses in its engine sheds and yet not to give it either money for research and development, or, better still, the contracts to do the research and development into more fuel-efficient engines would seem to be wasting the abilities of the company.
What I am trying to ask my hon. Friend is whether we need have what seems to me to be wasteful competition between two nationalised industries. Is there not a prospect of Harland and Wolff getting a rather larger slice of the orders placed by Government Departments? Are we really using the facilities and the expertise which that company possesses in terms of looking forward to the future? We should recognise that one day the recession will be over, the slump in shipbuilding will be over, and if we have sown the seed corn right we shall undoubtedly reap as good a harvest from that great company as from British Shipbuilders.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: In recent weeks, there has been some controversy in the House as to whether the Government were using underhand methods to announce decisions of major economic importance. Even at this stage, I cannot say with any great degree of accuracy whether they have engaged in such a tactic.
The one thing that I do know is that when the matter reaches the Floor of the House via the Opposition, and the Government are challenged on why they announced a 6½ per cent. maximum increase for public sector employees or the increase in firemen's wages by way of written answer, we can be certain that the usual channels will be called into operation and a debate will take place which will be resolved one way or another—in all probability in the Lobbies.
That is what Parliament is about. It is about a Government and an Opposition, with the Opposition having some say in how the government of the country is carried out. However, that does not occur in Northern Ireland. Those in control of the decision-making in Northern Ireland will issue a statement from Stormont Castle or go to a small rural area and make an announcement of major political and economic importance. Elected representatives from Northern Ireland constituencies have no say whatever, nor do they take part in any of the debates, until there is a fait accompli.
When decisions are taken, Northern Ireland Members must resort to the written question procedure in order to ask the Minister what it is all about. Sometimes he courteously forwards a statement about the decision that has been taken. If we do not resort to the written question procedure, we must wait for a month and ask an oral question on the Floor of the House.
Alternatively, we can interpose our objections in what are called "national debates", but, although it is not said aloud, hon. Members from Scotland, England and Wales look askance at any intrusion by a Northern Ireland Member into such debates. As the attendance in the House tonight reveals—I saw it this afternoon—there is an exodus from the Chamber when the subject of Northern Ireland is debated. [HON MEMBERS: "Particularly by the Labour Party."] I accept that this applies to all parties, and it has done so throughout the years that I have been a Member of the House. Therefore, it is only on an occasion such as this that Northern Ireland Members have the opportunity of going into many of the aspects relating to the economic situation as it affects the Six Counties.
Northern Ireland is allegedly part of the United Kingdom, but during the debate on the Queen's Speech Northern Ireland Members—I was one of them—were dying to be called to put forward their point of view. I am certain that no other part of the United Kingdom could, or would, wish to compete with Northern Ireland in relation to unemployment, but we must wait for a debate such as this to put our points of view. Of course, by the time this debate occurs the decisions have already been taken. The decisions that have been taken have brought nothing but tragedy and distress to the people of Northern Ireland during the past few months.
The hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) recently asked a question about the De Lorean car project, and the Secretary of State used that opportunity to announce a mini-Budget in relation to what was happening in Northern Ireland. He said:
I am now able to make the following statement about public expenditure in Northern Ireland in the current financial year, and in particular about further assistance to the De Lorean Motor Company.
He added:
I intend to reallocate £50 million within the Northern Ireland public expenditure programme in the current financial year".
He said that the Government would


increase the resources available to the programme…by £48 million".
It should be remembered that no Northern Ireland Member could query this. One could do so by way of a written question but he would get no great satisfaction by using that method. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
Of the £50 million reallocated, the main reductions are £24 million from environmental services and £10 million each from education and from health and social services. This reallocation is equivalent to 2 per cent. of current expenditure."—[Official Report, 6 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 85.]
If that is equivalent to only 2 per cent. of current expenditure in Northern Ireland, I can only say that that reallocation has had devastating effects on employment in Northern Ireland, as well as on the housing programme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has already alluded to this. Housing in Northern Ireland is among the worst that exists anywhere in Western Europe. It is unparalleled in any other part of the United Kingdom. It brings with it distress and despair for thousands of families who have been waiting for a home for years. In my own constituency, and in the city of Belfast generally, houting is a total and absolute disaster.
Yet we are told that there is to be a £24 million reduction from the Department of the Environment budget. But before we reach this debate we find that those cuts have already taken place. The Northern Ireland construction industry has been brought to an absolute standstill and has brought unemployment in its wake. Architects, engineers, tradesmen and labourers have swollen Northern Ireland's unemployment.
Let us analyse the effect which those cuts have had. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield rightly said, it is easier and more desirable to retain a job in Northern Ireland than to wipe it out of existence in the hope of attracting another job. What effect did the £10 million reallocated from education have? It meant poorer services, fewer school meals, fewer books and poorer nursery school facilities, all of which related to jobs. Can the Minister say how many jobs have been lost as a result of that £10 million reallocation?
Another £10 million has been reallocated from health and social services. That meant fewer facilities for the disabled and old-age pensioners, fewer home helps and poorer transport facilities for old people who must travel to hospital for treatment. It has affected all the things that are so necessary in order to making living worth while for those old people. How many jobs were lost as a result of that?
It must not be forgotten that 35 per cent. of Northern Ireland's employable population work in the public sector. The Government are abolishing jobs in education and housing in the public sector. Their actions have led to a serious deterioration in morale among the teaching profession. A sword of Damocles is hanging over the heads of teachers, who fear that there will be further redundancies.
I am as concerned about the labour-intensive services of the Department of the Environment. I do not need to read the statistics. I know many of the labourers who were working in the construction industry between May and July. Their employment was not all that secure, anyway, under a Conservative Government, but now they are standing in the dole queues. Their jobs have been taken away and they have been added to the unemployment total of 91,000.
Even that figure is not the correct level. It could be increased by many thousands. Many do not register as unemployed because they know that it is a waste of time. There are no jobs available. If there were prospects for them, they would register. It has been stated reliably by trade union sources that the real unemployment figure for Northern Ireland is between 110,000 and 120,000. That should make every hon. Member think about the tragedy of the situation.
Northern Ireland has suffered violence for the past 12 years. We shall be discussing that later, but how can there be anything other than social discontent and the possibility that the disaffected young will be drawn into paramilitary organisations when we have such appalling unemployment figures?
The people of Northern Ireland want to work. The story is put around that Northern Ireland Members always complain about high unemployment levels but that many of our people are unemployable. I have never accepted that. The truth is that nearly 9,000 people in Northern Ireland who are in full-time employment are also receiving family income supplement. That is an indication that they want to work. They are working for wages which, by the Government's own standards, are below the poverty level. The Government are having to pay social security supplements because employers are not paying sufficient wages.
Since the creation of the Northern Ireland State, earnings there have been only 75 per cent. of earnings in the rest of the United Kingdom. I have heard Conservative and Labour spokesmen claiming that one man's high wage is another man's redundancy. Can anyone tell me how to apply that logic to Northern Ireland, where earnings are only 75 per cent. of those in Britain? No industry in Northern Ireland has wages that are so high that the employer is forced to make men redundant. Wages are high in other parts of the United Kingdom. But the Low Pay Unit has repeatedly proved that Northern Ireland is the lowest paid region in the United Kingdom.
There has been an attack on the construction industry. The documentation is available for all to see, from the Ulster architects, the builders' federation in Northern Ireland and other bodies. They have all written to every Northern Ireland Member appealing to us to use our influence with the Minister to ensure that the Government rethink their disastrous policies.
A document was sent to all Northern Ireland Members by the Housing Executive. I have never been a wholehearted supporter of the Executive, and I have always had doubts about it. However, I put on record that the current chairman, Mr. Brett, is one of the most forceful, dedicated and concerned chairmen that the executive has had. He is not afraid to speak up when he thinks that Ministers are acting in a way that is disadvantageous not only to the Housing Executive but to the homeless in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Brett referred recently to a speech made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said:
I know how disappointing it is for anyone in the public services to be asked to postpone a desirable project because it cannot be afforded.
Mr. Brett's reply to that was:
It is not just desirable projects in the housing field which we are having to cut. We are also having to cut, postpone and abandon projects which are genuinely a matter of need. Who is to tell a family which has been for years on a waiting list living in overcrowded conditions in a condemned house that it is merely


desirable that they should have a better home, but that they do not really need one so they cannot have it? Who is going to tell an ailing pensoner that it is merely desirable that she should have hot water or an inside lavatory, but she doesn't really need those things?
In speaking in such terms, the chairman of the Housing Executive helped to illustrate that in applying such cuts to the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland the Government are ensuring that if they continue the policies on which they appear to be hell bent there will be no industrial base left on which to start rebuilding the economy when the world comes out of the recession. The base will have been smashed and there will be nothing left on which to build.
The hon. Member for Knutsford asked a pertinent question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield about the De Lorean project. The hon. Gentleman was given a written answer on the project and figures of £50 million, £48 million and £14 million have been mentioned. They all tie up somewhere. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield was a Minister, his Government tried to attract the De Lorean project to Northern Ireland, but it was on the basis of extra expenditure—not money being taken from other Departments. The then Labour Government provided extra money for the Northern Ireland economy, particularly in my constituency, because of its awful and appalling unemployment figures.
It is no exaggeration to say—it has been said already—that in some areas there are figures of 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. unemployed. Indeed, in Ballymurphy, Turf Lodge, New Barnsley, parts of Andersonstown and parts of the Lower Falls there are pockets of unemployment of up to 50 per cent. That was the motivation behind the Labour Government in trying to attract to that area an industry which would soak up some of the unemployed.
It was not meant simply to soak up the Catholic unemployed in West Belfast, because there were many unemployed Protestants there as well. But since that time it would appear that the Government have had to fulfil the small print in the agreement that was made between the previous Labour Government and John De Lorean. The Government could not get out of that commitment, so they said that they would live up to the agreement that was signed, but they have done it by depriving other parts of the Northern Ireland economy.
The agreement was never intended to create unemployment among nurses, people in education or people in the Health Service. It was not intended to create unemployment in the construction industry. None of these things was intended in order to try to create employment in De Lorean. That was never the intention of the Labour Government in arriving at the undertaking in the first place.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman has explained to us what was not the reason. Will he dwell on what was the reason? In other words, will he tell us precisely how much unemployment in West Belfast has been soaked up in this enterprise?

Mr. Fitt: When the question was raised previously in the House, I said that I was disappointed that the project had not gone ahead much faster. I am uncertain as to the

number of people employed in the industry. The original figure was to be 2,000. The sooner we arrive at that figure, the happier I shall be. It would be less than honest of me if I did not say that I was disappointed with the slowness of the uptake of employment in De Lorean. I wish the project well. If it does not prove to be a success, taxpayers' money will have been spent to no avail and a further mood of despair will overtake the people who live in the adjacent area.
I repeat that I wish the project well, and I do not want to say anything that would detract from its success. But, as one who represents West Belfast, with the highest figure of unemployment, I do not want to see people thrown out of employment purely and simply to create jobs in De Lorean. If that is the way in which the economy in Northern Ireland has to be run, it does not show any great degree of foresight.
The cuts that have been announced and implemented by the Government have led in Northern Ireland to a feeling almost of despair. The level of unemployment in Northern Ireland now is much worse than it was in the hungry 1930s. The level of unemployment in the hungry 1930s ought never to have been tolerated. Some of us recall what it meant and the emotions that it raised. Yet in 1980, half a century later, in Northern Ireland, with about the same employable population as in the 1930s, we have over 100,000 unemployed. Is it any wonder that there is such despair and tragedy in Northern Ireland?
In the Estimates that we have before us, we are told that the Government have reallocated £50 million to the industrial sector. I have asked the Government how many jobs will be lost in education, in health, in the social services and in the construction industry, so I must also ask how many jobs have been attracted by the reallocation of the £50 million. If the Government were able to give us some figures, we might be able reluctantly to accept the position, but I have not seen any great upsurge of employment anywhere in Northern Ireland. I have not seen any factories opening, but I read daily in the local press in Northern Ireland that there are further redundancies and further projected redundancies and short-time working. If the Government have spent the £50 million in the industrial areas in order to try to create employment, they have not met with much success so far.
At the same time as all those people have been thrown into unemployment and forced to have recourse to the social security system, the Government have chosen to abolish the Supplementary Benefits Commission, thereby adding insult to injury. It is a kick in the teeth to all those who have been forced out of employment and who have had to rely on the social services.
The people working in the Supplementary Benefits Commission in Northern Ireland were a humane and compassionate little group of people. I knew them. Given the regulations under which they had to work, they did what they could to make life just that little bit more bearable for those who relied on them.
Mr. Higgins, the last chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, said before he retired:
Last year in Northern Ireland we would have spent £1,600,000 on extra payments, and most of these extra payments went to families with young children and were needed for the purchase of clothes and shoes for children. Now these will disappear completely in the coming scheme.
We no longer have a Supplementary Benefits Commission which can sit down and go into all the aspects


of a claim. We do not have a compassionate arid humane approach to all the individual cases which occur not only n Northern Ireland but also in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) referred this afternoon to the high cost of energy in Northern Ireland—of heating, coal and so on. Under the new supplementary benefit regulations, there is a maximum that can be awarded to my claimant in receipt of supplementary benefit. That maximum is £4·35. There are many homes in Northern Ireland which cannot be heated for £4·35 a week, yet under the new regulations promulgated by the Department that is the maximum.
People will, therefore, suffer from the cold this winter. There are old people in Northern Ireland who will not be able to pay for the heat that they require at their age. We have heard a good deal in the House over the years about hypothermia. I am fearful that we shall have deaths from hypothermia in Northern Ireland this year because of the Government's niggardly approach to the heating allowance.
We heard recently that the Government were making same money available to the Youth Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland. However, whatever they make available will be a drop in the ocean, because there are 21,000 people under the age of 19 on the dole in Northern Ireland. They have no hope and no prospect of obtaining employment in the foreseeable future. That is not the answer. Those youngsters want the prospect of a job. There are no openings or opportunities for them in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister said recently that the unemployed from one region should go to another region to seek employment. That was a daft statement. Can anyone say where in Britain the unemployed youth from Northern Ireland will find a job? Is there any prospect of their finding jobs in Britain? Even if there were prospects, would not that cause almost racial tension between the unemployed in Britain and the people from Northern Ireland seeking jobs? They would not take kindly to some Paddy from Belfast taking a job that they could do.
In their mad pursuit of a monetarist policy, this Government are in danger of creating racial tension—racial tension between Welshmen and Englishmen and people from Northern Ireland and people from England—simply because those people are in desperaie search of employment, which is not available.
The Minister spoke of the high cost of energy and electricity in Northern Ireland. He said that the Northern Ireland electricity authority should be made competitive—but competitive against whom? It is not in competition with the gas industry or the coal industry. Coal can only generate electricity; it cannot be used to put on lights in the house. So, the Northern Ireland electricity authority is in competition with no one. It is a virtual monopoly. All hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies would like the Minister's comments on that.
Recently, there has been considerable controversy in the city of Belfast about certain statements that have been made—statements that are almost as good as the communiqué from Dublin. No, that is not so; the Dublin communiqué really takes the biscuit. Statements have been made to the effect that the EEC will give £100 million to the city of Belfast and that the Government simply have to fill in a form. I presume that the Department of the Environment will get some of that money and start a new

building programme in Northern Ireland, that the Department of Health will re-employ people whom it has laid off during the past year and that the Department of Education will do the same.
There is much confusion. I do not believe that we shall get anything like £100 million, and it is unfair for Ministers or anyone else to build up hope in the hearts of the people in Belfast, in particular, that the EEC fairy godmother will plough £100 million into helping dying Belfast. In his reply, the Minister should tell us whether there is any truth in that statement and whether there is any hope. Have the Government any plans to put forward to the EEC regional committee? If not, are they in the process of drawing up such plans, or when will they put forward such plans? I have serious doubts that the Government intend to do so.

Mr. John Dunlop: Not long ago, Mr. Roy Jenkins visited Belfast and he mentioned that matter during his speech at Queen's university. Although he mentioned the figure of £100 million, he said that, contingent upon it, plans would have to be submitted by Belfast city council, and £200 million mould have to come from the Government to supplement the £100 million in order to carry out the projects that were being considered.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman represents a rural constituency, but he is not so slow, as can readily be seen. So the Government are alleged to have to tell the EEC that they are prepared to put £200 million towards rebuilding Belfast, and they will then receive £100 million. I do not live in Disneyland, and I do not live in a dream world. I do not think that the Government will put £200 million into Belfast. But the Government should say that. I realise that if the Government put £200 million into Belfast, regions in other parts of the United Kingdom would ask why Belfast should get the money. They would say that they need it also. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield would like some of that money for his region.
In view of the tragedy of unemployment in Northern Ireland, and in view of the despair, the distress and the social deprivation, people should not be led to believe that money will be put into the area if the Government have no intention of doing so. Over the past three or four months the Government have increased the unemployment figure by 30,000 in pursuit of their policies. No other Government since the creation of the Northern Ireland State have succeeded in increasing the unemployment figures by that amount in one year. They have certainly got themselves into the "Guinness Book of Records". If I had any say in implementing Government policies, I would be ashamed of that record.
I have illustrated what I see as a serious and continually deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland. I ask the Government not to talk at Stormont, not to read the newspapers and not to talk to university academics but to go into the streets of Belfast. They should not simply go there for 10 minutes—I know that there is a security problem, and sometimes I cannot go there—but they should spend some time there and try to see more of those areas of deprivation and poverty. It might make them start to change their policies on Northern Ireland.

Mr. Johm Bruce-Gardyne: I thought that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was slightly


unfair in one or two of his remarks. First, he was critical of the fact that the House was not given an opportunity to debate these matters in a more timely manner. I think that Northern Ireland Members are privileged in that respect. We never get a chance to debate United Kingdom Supplementary Estimates. Northern Ireland Members have a full day, in prime time, to discuss Northern Ireland autumn Supplementary Estimates. Northern Ireland Members are extremely privileged, and I wish that we could share that privilege.
The hon. Gentleman was also a little unkind in the way that he described the reply given to me by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the Summer Recess. I challenge anyone reading the hon. Gentleman's remarks to grasp the fact that included in the reply was provision for an additional £48 million from the Contingency Fund. There was no mention of that anywhere.

Mr. Fitt: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that I did refer to it.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's view on that, but I shall read his remarks carefully because I did not hear him mention it. All we gathered from the hon. Gentleman's remarks was that there was a transfer of resources within the Northern Ireland Office, and on that matter I have a good deal of sympathy with the line taken by the hon. Gentleman.
That brings me to the one subject on which I wish to comment briefly—the well-known saga of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West that to the extent that there was written into my right hon. Friend's reply to me before the Summer Recess a transfer of resources from the environmental and welfare budgets to finance the latest tranche of lollipops for Mr. De Lorean. It was probably a poor bargain for Northern Ireland. However, it would appear that my right hon. Friend did not have much choice in the matter.
I have said before, and I say now, that the contract entered into by the Labour Government with this American gentleman was a scandal. It seemed a scandal that this American gentleman should be equipped with more than 70 per cent. of the equity in the project for 4 per cent. of the original investment. It seemed a scandal that the contract should be drawn up without any apparent awareness by the Government that Mr. De Lorean had been obliged to notify potential American investors not to invest in his project unless they were prepared to lose their entire initial minimum investment of $25,000.
What we did not know until the summer was that, not content with writing this incredible contract with this American gentleman, the Labour Government also wrote in, in what the hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to as small print, the provision that Mr. De Lorean was to be entitled to unlimited and open-ended accumulated subsidies for any increase in inflation or any change in the exchange rate—any change in the weather, for all we know—that might take place during progress on the project. That was the background to the latest £14 million addition.
I have taken the view throughout, and I have not changed it, that my right hon. and hon. Friends would have been better advised to have cancelled the contract on taking office and to have faced by way of compensation whatever consequences might have ensued. Like

Concorde, we are told that it is cheaper to go on than to stop, when in reality it is cheaper to stop at any time than to go on.

Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand the situation in Northern Ireland. He talks of compensation only in money terms and fails to appreciate the effect on confidence, and so on, in Northern Ireland. Would he have been prepared to take the consequences that could have flowed from cancellation of this project at that time? Everyone in the House and in Northern Ireland was absolutely delighted when the contract was entered into. The confidence that abounded in Northern Ireland showed itself in the statistics on terrorism and everything else. That is why I said that the taxpayer started to get his money back from the day that the contract was announced. There is more to this problem than money compensation.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I was coming to the next aspect—employment. We all recognise the gravity of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I listened with interest and sympathy to what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, West said about unemployment. What has the De Lorean project contributed to solving that problem? I understand that the latest figure for recruits to De Lorean is 488. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, will no doubt correct and bring the figure up to date. However, that is the latest figure that I have seen. I understand that the project was supposed to be in full production by now, employing 2,000 people. It is employing nowhere near that number. I wonder when it will do so.
The taxpayer is so far committed to the tune of £67 million. When my right hon. Friend explained the £14 million tranche in the summer, he revealed that there had been what he described as a slippage of three months in the production programme. I understand that at that time the car was due to go into production in October. I understand that it has not yet gone into production. We are now talking of full production beginning in the spring. So it drags on.
Meanwhile, the price of this remarkably pricey vehicle is rising hour by hour and day by day. I understand that the American dealerships were contracted on the basis that the car would sell for $18,000 on the United States market. We are now told that it is to be $25,000. There is quite a difference. Therefore, there must be a substantial difference in the car's market appeal.
That is not all. The De Lorean machine was not to be one of the most economical vehicles on the road. That is a not insignificant consideration when, even in the United States, petrol prices are rising and are likely to continue to rise sharply. Unfortunately, this vehicle's petrol consumption, as it approaches the point of series production, is not remaining stable. It is increasing. Will my hon. Friend, in reply to the debate, give the latest miles per gallon figure for this great car? I gather that it is falling significantly.
I was delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend in the summer that apparently this £14 million injection on top of the £53 million that had gone before was the full extent of our commitment to Mr. De Lorean and that it had been agreed that that should be in full settlement of the original concord. However, not many weeks passed before I read in the Daily Express:


'I am looking for cushioning,' he admitted. 'We need some extra funding in case of a sudden crisis like a strike in a key supply industry.'
I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches have proved extremely handsome and downy cushions for Mr. De Lorean, but I am alarmed to hear that he has come back for more. I should like an assurance that the ultimate limit has now been reached. I am fascinated to see that he is also producing 100 gold-plated versions of the car in time for this year's Christmas market. They are to cost $85,000 apiece.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman will get one if he keeps quiet.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I shall not say "No." I do not see why I should. I should at least get some of my money back. I make only one stipulation. Even if that car is for the American Christmas market, I suggest that every gold-plated vehicle should have the initials "OHMS" stamped on it. That would make it clear to whom potential purchasers owed their enjoyment.
We need some up-to-date information from my right hon. and hon. Friends. The information that has been circulating recently in the press is distinctly ominous. That is not surprising, because such news has been on the horizon from the beginning. I part company with the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). He claims that this great adventure had a miraculous effect on morale in Northern Ireland. I am sure that he is right. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman knows that this hyper-expensive project was rejected by every Government in the world. I should be interested to hear if the right hon. Gentleman can name one Government that considered it. Even well-known soft touches such as the Southern Irish and the Puerto Ricans turned it down. We did not. A hyper-expensive project was introduced that had only the remotest of prospects of being successful. Its fortunes depended on market changes and on the commercial environment. Optimistic forecasts were made at the time of the contract. What has happened? We are light years from success.
Although the project may have inspired confidence when the contract was signed, such confidence ignored the damage that was to be done. The project has contributed little towards solving the problems of unemployment in Ulster. Such confidence ignores the damage that will be done when the shutters go up, as they inevitably will.

Mr. Wm. Ross: I rise to speak on the problems of agriculture and on the smaller of the food-producing areas covered by the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture—namely, fisheries. The document before us shows that pay awards have increased the needs of the Department by about £20,000. That gives me an opportunity to raise the problems of fishing and, specifically, the problems that face the salmon fisheries off the north coast of Northern Ireland and in the Foyle estuary.
This is no light matter. It concerns many people. It has consequences for sea and game angling and for the tourist industry. Since 1920, the failure of successive Governments to establish an international boundary to seaward of Lough Foyle has had serious implications. That draws attention to the problems involved in the neighbourhood agreements as regards fishing across the

international boundary. As the £20,000 concerns wages, it draws attention to the need for proper protection. The migratory fish—namely, salmon and sea trout—are under severe pressure. The Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland is an angler. I do not need to spell out the problem. He is well aware of the difficulty and of the fighting that is going on. An enormous amount of salmon poaching takes place on the approaches to the rivers on the north coast.
The Minister knows that during the past year blows have been struck. He is aware that there have been shooting incidents and that many salmon nets that go far beyond the legal limit have been found. He also knows that tugs of war go on between protection and poaching vessels. Nothing has been done. If the amount of attention now being given is anything to go by, nothing will be done by the Minister, although he is supposed to protect those salmon fisheries off the north coast.
As the Minister is an angler, he does not need to be told about the problems. Many people largely depend on the industry for their livelihood. Indeed, not only fishermen but those involved in the tourist industry depend on it. I hope that the Minister will tell us what steps he intends to take next year to ensure that an effective system of policing will be introduced on the north coast. He might need the assistance of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but something needs to be done.
The Minister has to deal with another cross-border body as regards the Foyle estuary and the River Foyle. The Minister knows the situation. If anything, the situation there is more serious. At one time that fishery was the richest salmon fishery in Europe. The salmon are now disappearing. There is no possibility of any major improvement being achieved without tremendous effort.
Many representations have been made to the Minister and to his predecessors by anglers, commercial fishermen and myself. Unfortunately, most of the commercial gain from that fishery accrues to the Republic and, as a result, nothing effective is being done. The Minister and those who are affected know that. I wonder whether the whole system has been written off.
Will the Minister tell us what the prospects are? We do not want any woolly answers. We would prefer to be told the truth, as we should then know where we stand. As the Minister knows, some people on the north coast are trying to build up a tourist attraction in the form of sea fishing. Large sums of money have been invested. Those people want to know whether to continue to invest or whether to cut their losses and run. It is not fair to make promises and to encourage people to invest if they are only to have the rug pulled from under their feet because the Government do not want to defend that which it is their duty to defend.
Fisheries form a minor part of the business of the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture. Its major concern is the farming industry. It has had a disastrous year. I have never known a Government to be less willing to pull some chestnuts out of the fire. This year, the small fanner who depends on the dropped calf and milk producers have found that the price of a calf has fallen by about £30 a head. Suckling sales did not get any better in October and November. On 1979 figures, they fell by £30 per head. In real terms, that in turn showed a drop of £30 on the previous year. Calves cannot be produced at present prices. The Minister knows that. The problems tie in with


our membership of the Common Market and the common agricultural policy—just one more of the many problems that flow from that membership.
The pig and poultry industries are in steady decline. Between August 1979 and August 1980, the sow herd was down by 9 per cent. and poultry numbers were down by about 20 per cent. That is a reflection of the high feed price. Ministers have been pressed about that for a long time. The serious consequences of the high feed price in Northern Ireland has been pointed out to them. Many possible solutions have been put to them but nothing has been done.
The pricing system for milk has been changed. That matter has been taken up with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Apparently he said that it was the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland told the right hon. Gentleman on 7 October that that could not be so since the price of liquid milk was determined on a national basis. However, the different percentages of liquid milk sold in Northern Ireland and Great Britain militate against the Northern Ireland producer to such an extent that he is selling his milk at a much lower price than that which applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. The farmers' unions say that even in the rest of the United Kingdom the price does not cover overheads and expenses.
The position is made much worse because all this year's increases in the retail price of milk went to the distributor. None of it went to the primary producer. I admit that the distributor has his problems. However, the man who looks after the cows, has a high investment and is faced with severe problems should receive a certain amount of the increase. All that the housewife knows is that the pint of milk on her doorstep is costing her much more money. She believes that the farmer receives the increases, but the farmer has seen not a penny of it. No reasonable person believes that all of an increase should go to the distributor and none to the man or woman who does the work on the farm. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has tried to wash his hands of the problem and to give it to Northern Ireland Ministers. How on earth can that attitude be squared in the two Departments?
An even more serious problem exists. A certain amount of money has always been made available for agricultural research and development. A certain amount of money is supposed to be floating around in the EEC which could come to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the marginal land survey. I asked some questions in November and received interesting answers. I was told that in Northern Ireland about 44 per cent. of land was classified as marginal. In England the figure is 12 per cent., in Scotland 78 per cent.—which is just as one would expect—in Wales 56 per cent. and in the Republic of Ireland 55 per cent.
I was also told that although the Government had agreed to undertake the survey of marginal land in Northern Ireland and although it had been completed, no commitment was made that the less favoured areas would be extended or that the necessary extra public funds would be made available.
From that, and from the foot-dragging that is taking place in extending the less favoured areas in Northern Ireland, I can only assume that the survey is nothing more

or less than a whitewash job. I believe that the Government have already made up their minds that the areas will not be extended and that the money will not be made available. I believe that the Government regard the survey as a way of keeping farmers quiet on the issue for another few months. The Government may as well come clean and explain what they intend to do. The farmers' unions will soon realise that they are being told a fairy tale and that there is nothing at the end of the rainbow.
Let us examine the possibilities for EEC money being made available for structural measures in Northern Ireland. I recall the meeting of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and myself with the Minister of Agriculture when we sought a further meeting with him, the Ulster Farmers Union and the Secretary of State. The Minister of Agriculture was willing to meet us on that day. However, the brakes have been on ever since. Many problems have arisen and excuses have been made about why such a meeting should not take place. Structural measures should have come up for discussion in Brussels this week but they were not reached. The Greek Minister spoke for one-and-three-quarter hours without a break. It seems that there was no willingness by our partners in the EEC to make progress. Other important items, including the New Zealand butter and sugar regimes, were not reached either.
Every week the difficulties experienced by Northern Ireland farmers increase. Every effort seems to be made not to reach a decision. I am certain that there is nothing for the Northern Ireland farmer under this Government. There is nothing for the United Kingdom farmer. Everyone is being told "Hang on, old horse; you will get corn tomorrow." However, tomorrow is a long time coming. It will not come this winter. Farmers will be expected to pull in their belts and soldier through. I hope that they can soldier through well enough to survive.
For the first time in my life, in my constituency two farmers have gone broke and are bankrupt. Only people who have lived in the farming community know how farmers survive in hard times. They tighten their belts, live on their savings and wait for better days. They survive by living poor and dying rich. They survive by spending little money on themselves and by constantly improving their holdings. Most of their income in good years goes into farm improvements. In bad years they cut down on the amount of money spent on improvements and live on the residue. That is why farmers rarely go bankrupt. The fact that some have got into grave trouble this year shows how serious is the position of the farming community.
In truth, I think that the farmers of Northern Ireland have had all that they will get this year. They have had a totally unrealistic increase in the hill cow and hill sheep subsidies. I believe that the truest measure of the abilities of the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture is that this year it managed to get rid of the Agricultural Trust, which was doing a perhaps minor but nevertheless useful job, but the Government could not even get the dogs legislation off the ground after two or three years.
There are problems which are related, though only indirectly. They have come about because the Housing Executive, rather than the Department of Agriculture, is now responsible for housing on farms. I took the problem of a constituent to the Minister in charge of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. It worries me a great deal. I believe that with a little thought and rewriting of regulations it could be dealt with.
Before a dwelling on a farm can be considered for a grant under the different criteria applied to farmhouses, the farm must be viable—that is, it must now have an income of about £3,300 a year. In the circumstances of my constituent, the income was estimated at £2,000 a year. There may well be potential for that income to increase, because it was the case of a widow left with a small family. When the family grew up, one of the children started to farm.
The matter has wider implications. In Northern Ireland there are many small farms with part-time farmers who now find themselves falling outside the criteria because the income from the farm is below the viability level.
There is also the problem that on many farms more than one generation live in the farmhouse. Many of the farmhouses on the smaller farms are not of a reasonable standard and should have been condemned many years ago. They are occupied only because the owners live on the land. Many of the houses cannot easily be brought up to a proper standard under the housing authorities' regulations. We have long passed the time when someone should take a long, hard look at the social and economic problems that result from those regulations. If we do not repair those farmhouses, they will eventually get into such a state that the people concerned will leave, the Countryside will be depopulated and the land will go back to the wilderness, as much of it is not very good to begin with.
I see no reason why a way cannot be found, within the regulations, to meet the needs of that small group, to raise their standard of living and try to keep a reasonable number of people within the countryside. The depopulation of the countryside goes on apace. We must do something to try to keep viable communities in the remote areas.
There is a second problem related to farmhouses and the grants. I know of one case—no doubt there are more—of a farmer improving a house for his son and going beyond what the Housing Executive said was necessary for the size of his family and so on. In other words, he exceeded the cost limits and the size of the house. It was said that he did excessive demolition. If he had done only that, a way might have been found to pay the unfortunate man a grant, but he also took off the roof and raised the level of the house. One of the reasons why he had to do that was that the floor of the house was below the level of the farmyard. It had to go up, which meant that the ceilings had to go up, and then the roof had to go up. The farmer was left only with the shell.
The other reason for taking off the roof was that there was a certain amount of woodworm in it. The executive said that there was no need to remove it and that perhaps the timber could have been treated. A firm that does treatment work was called in to advise, and its advice was that the roof timbers could have been treated. It said that the work would have lasted a long time and, therefore, it was unnecessary to remove the roof.
Here I find a great difficulty, because I understand that the person who wrote the report was an employee of the firm that would have had the job of treating the roof. I cannot see that there is not, to say the least, a clash of interests. Has the matter been brought to the Minister's attention before? If not, will he give some attention to it? If what I have said is correct, it is time for a truly independent survey of roof timbers where such questions will arise.
We need to look at the cost limits, questions of excessive demolition and so on when dealing with older dwellings. The end result of the application of the present standards is that we always wind up with a job that is half done. On strict hygienic grounds. what is done is adequate, but because of the limits we end up with a dwelling that is not as comfortable, as well designed or anything else as it would be if a certain amount of elasticity were allowed in the application of the present regulations.
I turn now to the SPED scheme. The Minister is aware of the problems there. The scheme was established mainly to help those members of the security forces who had to leave their homes because they feared for their lives. In the autumn I took up with the Secretary of State the fact that a number of members of the security forces who had applied for help under the scheme had found that no money was available. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making available £200,000. The money was welcome, and has done a good job. It has relieved the position for the moment. But how on earth did the scheme run out of money?
It is vital that those who serve the folk of Northern Ireland, and who have to move as a result of their activities against the terrorist organisations, should be protected so far as possible. Some people who had to leave their homes and go to other parts of the Province were unable to sell them at a reasonable price. They had to pay high bank interest or high rents when they had good homes 40 or 50 miles away that they could not live in. I should like the Minister to give an assurance that what happened will not be allowed to occur again and that steps will be taken to ensure that those who have to move are protected financially as well as in every other way.
I turn to the question of the information services. Within the past few weeks, the Northern Ireland Office has published two booklets on H-blocks. In a written answer on 2 December, I was told:
A total of 15,000 copies of the booklet were printed. Copies have been sent to the news media; British information posts abroad; all Members of the House of Commons; some Members of the House of Lords; British Members of the European Parliament; appropriate diplomatic missions in London; and to interested organisations and individuals.
There was an enormous improvement in the second booklet compared with the first booklet. The first was produced in black and white, which did not convey the conditions in which the potential suicides and their friends lived, and which they had created. The second booklet was produced in colour and was much better. When the third booklet is published, I hope that it will include pictures of the victims of the prisoners. A total of 15,000 copies does not seem enough for the job that must be done in Britain alone, never mind elsewhere. We should not take in isolation a group of people who are quietly committing suicide for their own ends and show the public that position without providing the background to that group of murderers.
To give only a narrow view allows great holes to be picked in the information provided by the Northern Ireland Office. If the job is to be done—and it must be done comprehensively and well—it cannot be done with the sort of money that is being made available.
If the Government intend to still suspicion in the House, the Prime Minister, when she eventually answers a question that I have tabled, should say that she intends to publish the minutes of the meeting that she had in Dublin on Monday. People will then be in a better position to form


a judgment about what was said and about the long-term future for Northern Ireland within the policies that the Government are enunciating. Nothing could be worse than to find doubt and suspicion not just creeping in but blazing like a forest fire in Northern Ireland because of the differing stories coming from different places.
The information services need to be expanded. They need to be comprehensive. The Government need to remember that emotions are inflamed in Northern Ireland by information which, whether or not accurate, is looked upon as misinformation. The Government should also remember that, especially in Northern Ireland, people act not on what is necessarily the truth but on what they believe to be the truth. The people of Northern Ireland believe that a great treachery and betrayal of their future interests took place on Monday. The Government have much to do if they are to return to the position that they once occupied in the minds of the citizens of Northern Ireland.
I turn to Class VIII relating to expenditure on community services, arts, youth museums, sports and allied services. The sports facilities are provided mainly by councils in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister is not unaware of the delicate, dangerous and explosive position that has arisen in Londonderry during the past few months because of the city council's proposal to open a Gaelic pitch in the Waterside area of the city. The Minister knows as well as I do that that was first mooted for a totally different area in May 1979. He is also aware that the present proposals mean a change of use from two soccer pitches to one Gaelic pitch. That change is taking place in the heart of a loyalist community. It has cost a great deal of money—unnecessarily so, because the soccer pitches were only recently finished.
The Minister is aware that the officials from the council who reported on the suitability of the site produced an adverse report. He is also aware of the enormous amount of protest from local residents. As a result, all the fancy stories about good relations in the council chamber in Londonderry have been blown away. The Minister knows that I and other Unionist members of the council long ago warned him and his predecessors that the supposedly good relationship was only a facade which hid the real position in Londonderry. It worked only because some people within the council were trying to do their best for their city. Those efforts to look after the interests of the city and to keep peace, quietness and good neighbourliness have been blown away. They have been buried under the avalanche of SDLP arrogance and bigotry. The SDLP trampled over everyone's susceptibilities. It went into that area with that proposal knowing that it would cause trouble. It was told by many people, both in public and in private, of the inherent dangers.
Because of this festering sore in the city, I ask the Minister to hold a public inquiry and try to get the majority grouping on the council to see sense before the position is completely out of control. I am concerned about the position that has arisen and has been kept going by the SDLP on the Londonderry council.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I find it difficult to resist the temptation—no, the duty—to follow on directly from where the hon. Member for Londonderry

(Mr. Ross) left off. He referred to the Gaelic Athletic Association. The House will be aware that a considerable amount of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money is provided to fund that organisation. It has been a sad and sorry spectacle on our television screens during the past few weeks to see the banners and flags of the GAA in the forefront of the protest being carried out on behalf of the murderers and gunmen in the Maze prison in Belfast.
It is obvious to everyone who reads the Irish News that advertisements are placed almost every day by that same so-called sporting orginasation in support of what some term as the brave men in the Maze prison. Those who read the news columns in that paper will be aware of the news articles about resolutions passed by that organisation, which discriminates in its membership against the security forces. I call upon the Minister to review the decision taken some time ago to continue to fund the GAA. Following a court case involving Magherafelt district council, there was a break in payments to the GAA. We have now reached the stage where the House must express its views forcefully to the Government. The Government should not continue to give money to an organisation that acts in a political, indeed paramilitary, fashion. They must stop doing so immediately.
I shall contain my remarks within Class II, Vote 2, which relates to the Department of Commerce. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made some critical but low-key remarks about Harland and Wolff. Others have been more scathing in their attacks on the company and the finance that has been made available to it. The hon. Gentleman referred to Harland and Wolff's work force numbering about 7,000. It was about 22,000 in the 1960s and 10,600 in the mid-1970s. It has been scaled down significantly over the years. If it is further reduced, the yard will no longer be a viable proposition for shipbuilding. However, it is one of the largest employers of labour in Northern Ireland. The company's activity is a significant factor for the welfare of the local community.
The worldwide recession has had its effect on shipbuilding, which is unprofitable throughout the world. However, there are factors that are peculiar to Northern Ireland that have made Harland and Wolff's task more difficult. It has been faced with high energy costs. The cost of its supplies is significantly larger than the costs that British shipyards have to meet because of high transportation charges.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North talked about slippage and missed delivery times. There are many reasons for that. It seems that the Minister has recognised them. For example, there are difficulties when a change is made from building large ships to building gas containers and small ferries. There are many difficulties in adapting the yard and the work force to undertake that different type of work. There were difficulties with buckled steel. These problems can set back delivery dates. The change of design for the ferries caused difficulties. The Minister took all these factors into consideration. He recognised that the company has an important position within the community, that it had had great difficulties in the past and that it would be worth while to support it.
Harland and Wolff is working at about one-quarter of its capacity. That does not mean that its overheads are one-quarter what they would be if the yard were working at full capacity. They are substantially more than that.
I received a letter from the Minister dated 4 October 1979 on work that might come from the Ministry of


Defence. The hon. Gentleman told me that he had received an assurance that Harland and Wolff would be on the Ministry of Defence tender list for ship repair work and Fleet Auxiliary construction. Few of us will forget the Cebate that took place in the House in April, after which I tabled an early-day motion to the effect that the yard had been misled by the Minister because the Government had shelved the proposition that was based on various tenders from the company.
The Minister was hurt and offended. He wrote to me to tell me that my reference to all tenders for such ships being shelved was not true. I based my remarks not on something that I pulled out of the air but on a letter that I received from Lord Strathcona, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, who wrote:
The shipbuilders' tenders have now been evaluated and in the light of that evaluation it has been decided to review the Royal Navy support tanker requirements in order to determine whether they can be met more cost effectively. The review is in hand, but since it has not yet been completed it has been decided to allow the current tenders to lapse.
What is the present state of MOD tenders? What conversations has the hon. Gentleman had with the Minister of State about work from the MOD? It is clear that we need to get more orders for Harland and Wolff. I am sure that the Minister has lead the substantial document that was published after the study group, which was chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, entitled "The Royal Dockyards: A Framework for the Future". There is a reference in that document to meetings being arranged at which representatives of Harland and Wolff would be present and at which they would consider what work presently carried out in the dockyards could be undertaken by commercial contractors. Has any progress been made in that area?
Has the Minister received a progress report from the review team that is considering diversification? I am sure that we all wish the team every success in its job. However, shipbuilding yards are made for building ships, and I cannot see any great prospect for diversification.
Has the Minister made any further progress on the issues that he raised in his written answer on 1 July, when he introduced the subject of the funding and financing of Harland and Wolff and its share capital? What is his view of the improvement since 1 July? He said that his Department would undertake reviews.
What position has been reached on Short Brothers' corporate plan? Is the Minister in a position to make a statement on that company's future?
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) referred to unemployment. Many of us are concerned by recent reports from two companies in Northern Ireland, namely, Euroware and British Enkalon. Is the Minister able, to give us some idea of the future prospects for those companies so that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North can take whatever steps he feels necessary to assist British Enkalon and I can do likewise for Euroware?
Class V deals with housing. I cannot do other than agree with the lion. Member for Belfast, West about the appalling housing situation. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that about 20,000 people were on the waiting lists. About 4,500 of those families are in my constituency of Belfast, East, which is probably the largest number in the Province. It is frustrating weekly to have to tell people in much need that there is little prospect of their obtaining a house.
Selection for housing in Northern Ireland is on a points system, but four priority groups take precedence. The highest priority group is for people who have been intimidated, had their house burnt down, flooded and so on. There are also other very important groups, such as those who for health reasons must move to other accommodation. In my constituency, those in the second, third or fourth priority groups seldom, if ever, get a house, never mind those on the points list. There is virtually no chance for people not on the A1 priority list.
Old-age pensioners and people with heart complaints have to live upstairs because they cannot get ground floor accommodation. People with chest problems are living in damp accommodation. People are lb, ing in statutorily unfit housing and need urgently to be moved. They cannot get housing because they are in the third group. There is great need—need even assessed by the points system—but there are no houses available.
The Government's answer in my constituency is a handful of houses. The housing stock in Northern Ireland must be urgently reviewed. There will increasingly be more statutorily unfit houses, but houses are not being built to replace them.
The Minister has set up a group to look at housing need in the general area of south and east Belfast. I do not know whether the review body was set up to silence certain hon. Members who had been kicking up dust about the housing needs in their constituencies, but we are still awaiting its report. Can the Minister expedite the process and ensure that there is comfort in the report for the thousands of people who are in great need and hardship and have little prospect in present circumstances of getting accommodation?
The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to other effects that the Government's cuts are having on Northern Ireland. He dealt with health and social services. In my constituency we are under the Eastern health and social services board, which has taken a decision to cut the transport that enables old-age pensioners, the mentally and physically handicapped, the blind, the deaf and the dumb to attend day centres for one evening a week. Different classes are run throughout the week and at weekends for different groups. Transport is stopped for all evenings and weekends. Those people in the greatest need, who are least able to defend themselves against the Minister's decision, are virtually prisoners in their homes.
I do not believe that the Minister is hard-hearted, but his policy is causing great concern and hardship to people greatly in need. If the cuts have come to the stage where old-age pensioners, the blind, the deaf, the dumb and other disabled people have to suffer, they have gone far too far. The time has come to stop them. I had a meeting with the Minister. He told me that it was up to the board to administer the cuts in the least painful fashion. If this is the least painful fashion, I dread to consider what will happen when the next cuts come—because come they will. Who will then be affected—people in hospital beds or geriatrics? What about the Ulster hospital at Dundonald? The Minister had a programme to open a geriatric unit there in January next. Reports from the doctors suggest that it will not go ahead. Again, the old and infirm will suffer.
Will the Minister please reconsider before it is too late and have some sympathy for those most in need?

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me rather earlier than I expected. I shall be brief. Other hon. Members are anxious to contribute and have been waiting for some time.
I wish to draw attention to De Lorean Motor Cars Limited. I have been raising the matter for a considerable time, not only, as the Minister once said in a reply to a parliamentary question from me, since just after May 1979. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will testify that I was asking questions when he was in office. The answers that my right hon. Friend gave were far more comprehensive than those from the present Government.
Everyone endorses the idea of providing jobs in West Belfast. No one can grumble about the principle of providing jobs in an area of high unemployment. The idea is principally to provide jobs for Catholics, although I know that in Northern Ireland such distinctions are not made. However, that is the underlying notion. It is a worthy notion. If there is a pool of high unemployment among Protestants or Catholics, it is a worthy aim to try to remedy the problem by providing jobs.
However, I understand that the Fair Employment Agency in Northern Ireland has already found that people have not been employed on a fair basis, Catholic against Protestant. The original aim does not seem to have been quite carried out.
I also want to question the amount of expenditure for the number of jobs that have resulted, which is far and away too high. Other methods of providing at least that number of jobs and probably more would have cost less. The cost yardstick that is applied in the remainder of the United Kingdom has been thrust willy-nilly to one side in the case of De Lorean. From listening to the debate, it appears that it would have been vastly preferable to have spent the money to provide service buildings and housing and assist the construction industry, which is in an extremely difficult position. However, the main question is whether the £67 million is value for money. Can we honestly say that it is going to an area of high unemployment to provide secure, fixed jobs for a worthwhile period?
I should like to examine some of the background which is important in considering the development of the venture. The private contribution to De Lorean Motor Cars Limited was $11·2 million, with $6·9 million spent on research and development, making a total of around £9 million. In addition, it is claimed that a sum of $15.5 million was spent on research and development by the De Lorean partnership—roughly around £7 million. That is a tidy sum of money. Why is it, therefore, necessary for a part of that £67 million—we do not know quite how much—to be spent with the Lotus car company on developing the car, when £7 million has already been spent on this wonder car, which is the reason why the project was embarked on in the first place?
On close examination of the venture, it was discovered that it would not fit into an engineering context, and the contract had to be placed with Lotus Cars. Unfortunately, that contract was not made available in the Library, and the details of, for example, the development of the car were described as matters for the company management.
I asked whether details of the arrangement between the company, the Department of Commerce and the Northern

Ireland Development Agency could be placed in the Library, and I was told that the agreement had been concluded on the basis of commercial confidentiality. When the Government enter into expenditure of this magnitude, the country's elected representatives should be given enough information to ensure that they can carry out adequate scrutiny.
The main cause of concern is that the ownership and the rights of the De Lorean car do not rest with the organisation that receives the money—De Lorean Cars. I have tabled a number of questions aimed at eliciting information, and if I am, therefore, wrong it is because of an absence of information or a misinterpretation of the answers that have been provided. The taxpayer is therefore providing all the kit, the equipment, the factories and the research and development finance, the last through a contract placed with Lotus Cars. However, the ownership of the car ends up not with the taxpayer through directors on the board of the De Lorean car company but with the De Lorean research partnership.
I should be interested to discover who is in that partnership, but the Minister has said that it would be inappropriate to list the 134 individual partners, and the De Lorean car company is apparently a single general partner. When £67 million of public money is going into a venture such as this, it is not unreasonable to list those involved in the research partnership who are being provided with the design, the ownership and the development of a motor car which they will own, whereas, if the worst comes to the worst—I hope that it does not—and the car company goes into liquidation the taxpayer will be left with nothing.
Sometimes when one is critical it is thought that one does not wish a project well and that one wants one's remarks verified by a lack of success. That is not the case with me. I want the company to succeed, but there are matters that cause concern and we have a duty to raise such matters when they are genuine. A common view is held on the Labour side of the House and is shared by one or two Conservative Members that the project should be subject to closer scrutiny.
My concern is that the project was started on the basis of what appears to be insufficient evidence. There was no detailed technical assessment of the venture,. After the commencement of the venture one of the firms of consultants called in by De Lorean to examine the project was Booze Hamilton. I am concerned that the man in charge of new projects at Booze Hamilton is a vice-president of the De Lorean car company. That does not seem the best basis on which to secure an objective assessment of a new project. That sort of factor needs examining in great detail to discover whether that is the basis upon which new projects are examined. If it is, we should overhaul it so that we do not go in that direction again.
Is scrutiny of the company regarded as adequate? Are the civil servants who put the project forward, for instance, still involved in scrutiny and management? Are they exercising sufficiently tight control? Are there regular reports? Answers to parliamentary questions that I have tabled indicate that there are regular reports, but what provision is made to ensure that the House is provided with adequate information?
There is always a difficult line to be drawn between providing information and not breaching commercial confidentiality. Clearly, one or two items must come


within the sphere of commercial confidence, but when there is so much information that it is deemed imprudent to provide on this ground people begin to suspect that commercial confidentiality is being used not genuinely to protect some important financial position but simply to fob off those who, like myself, are seeking information.
What is the current position of the project? Production is very much overdue. I have asked the Minister whether the new Tellus carriers, the new automatic wonder carriers which are to be an integral part of production, have yet been installed. I understand from reading magazines, in which this project is reported—that is apparently what the Minister did when he started on it, and I am getting information from where I can—that these carriers are crucial to the build-up of production. The Minister said that the question whether the carriers were installed was a matter for the company.
In a project such as this, we deserve more information about the process leading up to production. For example, why was it found after all the expenditure that it was not possible to produce the vehicle for the Birmingham motor show last October? There is supposed to be a pilot production plant in which people are being trained. Why is the car so much overdue when I understand that the building work was carried out with speed and efficiency?
We want information of that nature, and I hope that the Minister will give us a progress report and tell us whether production, overdue though it is, has started, whether the distribution set-up in the United States is satisfactory, whether the target number of dealers there has been reached and whether all the factors necessary to begin production have yet been achieved.

Mr. Michael Brown: Did the hon. Member see the interview given by Mr. De Lorean just before the Birmingham motor show in which he gave no indication, when pressed by the interviewer, about when we could expect to see the vehicle in production? Will he express to my hon. Friend the Minister the concern that he obviously feels at this lack of information by Mr. De Lorean about when the vehicle might appear?

Mr. Concannon: They could not get the steel.

Mr. Cryer: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I have asked the Minister when production will start.
I should like to know what happened to elastic reservoir moulding. That was another wonder process which was an integral part of the operation. In reply to questions, the Minister said that research and development were Proceeding satisfactorily, but I now understand that that Drocess has been dropped. How close has the scrutiny been if in one month the Minister can say that research is proceeding satisfactorily and, the following month says that it has suddenly been brought to a halt? That suggests a certain lack of scrutiny.
Indeed, I recall that during the previous Northern Ireland Question Time the Minister had to admit that he had not been in the factory at all. I do not expect him to go around every factory—

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): I am glad to intervene in this incredible garbage, and I should like to make it clear that I have visited the factory many times. I indicated at the last Question Time that I had not visited the production line within the last two or three weeks. I visited it last Tuesday.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the Minister, but in answer to a question at the time he said that he had not visited the factory recently. I do not want to misrepresent the position.
The Minister described my comments as "incredible garbage". That worries me a little. If I am right, if £67 million has been expended on this project, if the ownership of the car is not in the hands of the company to which the £67 million has been allocated and if it is in the hands of the De Lorean research partnership, that is a cause for concern. Overdue production is a cause for concern. The fact that a contract with Lotus Cars was necessary, when it was supposed to be such a wonderful car, is a cause for concern. The vagaries of this production and the fact that there has been such a lack of information are causes for concern.
I do not think that the Minister is being reasonable in his attitude to this type of questioning. He is accountable to the House, and I have a reasonable right to raise these matters. I have not raised them in a dramatic or trivial manner or suggested that the project be written off. I have made it quite clear that the underlying principle of providing jobs in areas of high unemployment is a desirable one. The only question I ask is whether this is an effective way of using the money involved and whether at the end of the day, with all the information at his disposal, the Minister believes that the project will be successful. I hope that it is. However, certain matters are causing deep concern. Whatever the Minister's views about my comments, I shall continue to raise these matters, and I hope that the information which he gives will be better than it has been in the past.

Mr. Peter Mills: I should like to speak briefly about the milk industry in Northern Ireland. Some hon. Members may ask why I am speaking in this debate. The reasons are quite simple. The first is that I have a deep affection for Northern Ireland and the second is that for some time I had the privilege of being a Minister over there and handled the problems of the dairy industry and agriculture generally. As chairman of the Conservative Back Bench committee on agriculture and food, I feel that that committee should be concerned with the whole of the United Kingdom and the problems that are experienced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As I see it, the problem is fairly simple. In Northern Ireland, 20 per cent. of the milk that is produced goes towards liquid milk for domestic consumption and 80 per cent. for manufacture. Because of pricing arrangements, the milk producers over there are at a real disadvantage compared with England, Wales and Scotland. The present difficulties are causing real harm to those producers. That is something which must be rectified by the Government. I would be dishonest if I did not mention that.
In case my hon. Friend the Minister gets too worried, I should point out that I am not suggesting that more money in total should be spent in Northern Ireland. What I am saying is that the arrangements for the carving up of the cake are wrong Dairy producers have been neglected this year. We need to boost the unsatisfactory returns for manufacturing milk to levels that are broadly acceptable to producers.
I used to have a considerable say in these matters and the Government of whom I was a member helped, through standard quantities, remoteness grants and in other ways,


to alleviate the difficulties of the producers in Northern Ireland. The difficulties are not the fault of the producers; they are caused by various factors. We need to act fairly quickly.
In 1978–79 and 1979–80, producers received from the United Kingdom supplements to market returns that were described as milk aid. They brought Northern Ireland producer prices nearer to those in England and Wales, and the aid totalled £11·8 million in 1978–79 and £10·7 million in 1979–80. The special aid is even more necessary this year because of the rise in the costs of milk production in Northern Ireland. The costs of fuel, labour, fertilisers and other factors are rising.
I have been in touch with the Milk Marketing Board in Northern Ireland and I understand that the price there is at least 1p a litre less than the price paid to producers in England. The price in England is unsatisfactory and that in Northern Ireland is even more unsatisfactory.
I support the Government's constraints on public expenditure, but I criticise the method that they have adopted in regard to priorities in Northern Ireland. We have heard about the De Lorean car project and we know that the Belfast shipyard is receiving enormous sums to keep it going. Yet dairy farmers are getting no special aid. That is where the Government have gone wrong. I understand that the size of the cake must be reduced, but it should be cut up fairly and at least some money should go in special aid to dairy producers in Northern Ireland.
It is far better to back success stories than projects that drain away money, and agriculture in Northern Ireland is a success story. Its small, family farms are a model. I wish that we had such farms in Britain. The Northern Ireland farms are efficient, well organised and well run, but they need our support and extra money for milk. Much of the stability of Northern Ireland is in the rural areas and it is important to retain that stability and to keep rural farms viable. Unless action is taken and the decision to end special aid is reversed, many more producers will leave the industry.
I have another interest in the debate. The Milk Marketing Board in Northern Ireland has said that it will export liquid milk to Glasgow and Liverpool. I do not doubt that the board will do as it says and that competition will affect producers in my constituency. I do not blame the marketing board and farmers in Northern Ireland. If they cannot sell their milk in Northern Ireland and get the price or aid that is required, they must look round for other outlets and markets. That is what they will do, and that is the threat. I was told about it when I spoke to the chairman last week in the House of Commons. It is a very serious matter. I do not want to see it happen.
It is right that Northern Ireland dairy producers should have a share of the aid and help that is going to Northern Ireland as a whole. While it may be necessary to cut back on the shipyards and on the car manufacturers, and perhaps somewhere else, for heaven's sake let us be fair in these matters and back what is a success story in Northern Ireland—its agriculture.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The De Lorean project has been mentioned several times in the

course of the debate, perhaps not surprisingly, and I confess that I am very much perplexed by a good deal of what has been said.
It was stated that it was the object of the previous Administration—indeed, they almost boasted that it was their objective—to soak up the unemployed in West Belfast. If that was the object, why did they not think of putting the factory in West Belfast and not in my constituency in South Antrim? That would be an obvious and very elementary question to ask.
The hon. Member for Keighly (Mr. Cryer) does not need to apologise to us or to the House for participating in a Northern Ireland debate. We on these Benches have always welcomed the participation of hon. Members representing all the other parts of the United Kingdom. We would reciprocate and claim the right to meddle in, if that is the right term—I would be more constructive and say contribute to—the debates affecting other parts of the United Kingdom. But I was somewhat startled by his assertion that the Fair Employment Agency, of which we heard something in times past, had already, even at this early stage, discovered that the work force was not fairly or evenly balanced.
If that is so, and the agency has so reported, I wonder what would have happened if the factory had been sited in West Belfast, where it was presumably intended to be sited, and the work force had been predominantly Roman Catholic. Would that have been regarded as an unfair balance in the work force?
Whether people like it or not, the factory is in South Antrim. Indeed, it is well inside South Antrim, because the nearest constituency is not that of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). But, given that it is situated in South Antrim, with the next nearest constituency that of Belfast, South, is the Fair Employment Agency complaining because the work force broadly reflects the composition of the population in the area in which the factory is physically sited?
If that is the agency's attitude, how does it propose to remedy the matter? Will it "bus" workers from another area, namely, West Belfast, or will it find some other way of controlling artificially the recruitment of the work force of De Lorean?
It would be the view of most Northern Ireland Members that indigenous industry in Northern Ireland should be maintained and, if possible, expanded. I suppose that all of us in times past have subscribed to what was then the fashionable belief—that the multinational companies were the answer to all our problems. While we were and are grateful for the contribution made by those industrial giants, we now have to be realistic and face the fact that in the future jobs in Ulster are more likely to be found in agriculture and, with one or two exceptions, in Ulster-based industry.
Two of the largest employers of labour in Northern Ireland are Carreras and Gallaher, and it must be gratifying to note that they are prepared to stand on their own feet and not depend on public funds to sustain them. Members of Parliament and members of the Government can in return do them a service, and do a service to their employees, by persuading the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to resist the efforts of the anti-smoking enthusiasts to hamper and hamstring the tobacco industry. I make that plea as the leader of a non-smoking


parliamentary party, with no vested interest in tobacco manufacturing other than to ensure that real and secure jobs are sustained and maintained in Northern Ireland.
It is possible that some of the money that is mentioned in Class II will have been spent in a genuine attempt to encourage and sustain relatively small local industries and companies. One such industry is the paint manufacturing industry. My impression is that it asks for little or nothing in the way of subsidies or propping-up measures. There may be a small grant here or there, but it is not significant. Government Departments in Northern Ireland could do much to safeguard the interests of such industries and companies. They could, for example, take a more realistic and modern approach to the required standard of paint that is supplied for use by Government Departments and public agencies.
It will no doubt startle the House to discover that in many cases the standards were drawn up by the Defence Department shortly after the Second World War—35 years age. It will not surprise the House to hear that there have been great strides in paint technology over the last 35 years, but, nevertheless, in many cases the Northern Ireland Departments insist on that outdated standard, which is generally known as the DEF approved standard When I asked for an explanation for the retention of this requirement, the chief architect at the Department of Finance simply replied that he was mandated to retain the DEF approved standard. By whom was he mandated, and for what reason?
The net effect of that obsolete standard—it is obsolete in the sense that only 40 per cent. of the leading manufacturers in Great Britain make any attempt to comply with it because it is considered to be nonsensical—is to make it impossible for Northern Ireland paint manufacturers to tender for contracts to be carried out within Northern Ireland and to tender for contracts placed by Northern Ireland Government Departments and agencies. Consequently, the contracts go to companies outside Northern Ireland.
Does that make sense in the present situation? I hope that Ministers will take immediate steps to remove this obsolete and nonsensical restriction, which is proving to be damaging to local suppliers.

Mr. John Dunlop: I think I owe the Chair an apology. Earlier, I rose to leave the Chamber on an undertaking for one of my hon. Friends, and I was called by the Chair to speak. I should therefore like to apologise to the previous occupant of the Chair.
In his speech, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) reminded me that I was a representative of a largely rural constituency, and he expressed astonishment that I seemed to have even a modicum of intelligence, even though that is so.
I wish to speak briefly about Class IV, which deals with roads, lighting, car parks, and so on. Has the Minister any information about the construction of the Strabane bypass? One of the worst bottlenecks in the whole of the United Kingdom is the main road between Omagh and Londonderry, which goes through the town of Strabane. On many occasions it has taken me between half an hour and three-quarters of an hour to traverse less than half a mile of road, because of the bottleneck of traffic. If a large Vehicle is loading or unloading in the main street, all the traffic is held up until that operation is finished.
In the spring of 1979 a public inquiry into this matter came down on the side of a bypass rather than what was described as a throughpass. The scheme was to run a road through the centre of the town and to build a bridge across the main street—a most harebrained scheme. Is there any provision for road maintenance and the beginning of the Strabane bypass, which is the number one priority for traffic between Omagh and Londonderry?
I turn now to lighting. It seems that there is a campaign now to save energy. Street lighting in the town in which I live has been considerably reduced over the past few nights. Some lights were erected in the street in which I live. I think that that was part of a security exercise, advised by the special branch, because a Member of Parliament lived in a road which was always in total darkness.
The three lights that have been erected have not been lit for several nights. I had to grope my way down the road and try to find my way into my entrance in total darkness. There is only one light in the road leading to that, which is the main road that leads to Coleraine and other towns. I should mention one of the monumental anomalies that has occurred in our little country. When my wife was driving me to Aldergrove airport to come here on Tuesday morning, I noticed that every light in the main street of Moneymore was ablaze, and for more than half a mile down the road from Moneymore to Magherafelt every light was blazing at full power. That is the kind of contradiction that we face.
If the Department is trying to save energy by leaving us in semi-darkness at night, why is the whole region lit at full power in daylight? That cannot be a large energy saving.
Many hon. Members have mentioned housing. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) dwelt long and particularly on housing. I enter a plea for the Royal British Legion Housing Association in Northern Ireland, which is in considerable difficulty. In a letter to hon. Members it states that in Great Britain the number of dwellings approved for associations is likely to drop from 43,000 in 1979–80 to only 12,000 in the coming year. That is a tremendous drop.
One of the organisations which should have sympathetic consideration from the Government in the allocation of funds for housing is the Royal British Legion Housing Association, a laudable organisation for which many people work in a voluntary capacity. It does not cost the country or the taxpayer any money. It should be encouraged in its work. I appeal to the Minister to consider this matter and to assure the people who are working so hard in this section of the community that they will receive sympathetic and helpful consideration in the building of houses, organised and helped along by the Royal British Legion Housing Association.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The House might have been surprised when it listened to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) hold forth on street lighting on one of the three major Northern Ireland days. However, the hon. Gentleman's speech acts as a salutary reminder to the House that, although district councils in Northern Ireland are considered to be capable of providing sports facilities and of clearing rubbish, they are not thought worthy or capable of seeing to street lighting.


Hon. Members are the only elected persons who carry responsibility for that important, but comparatively minor, service.
The Queen's Speech declared that the Government were looking for opportunities to involve local people and locally elected representatives in the affairs of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster has pointedly reminded the Government of a direction in which they might turn. It is not a difficult direction and does not present insurmountable problems.
I shall make two brief financial observations and then comment at greater length on the affairs of the Housing Executive. I intervened in the Minister's introductory speech and asked a question that might not have been clear. If so, that was my fault. I shall put the question again in the hope that the Minister will clarify the point. There was an important virement in the Northern Ireland Vote in the middle of summer. The major sum of £50 million, plus £48 million, was added respectively and rearranged. After considerable investigation, it is still not clear whether the whole of that arrangement comes within the Northern Ireland Estimates that are now in the order before the House or whether the ambit is wider—namely, the Northern Ireland programme as it is featured in the Government expenditure Blue Book. Obviously, that includes expenditure that falls under other heads in the total Votes. I gather that the Minister has understood my point. I should be grateful if he would clear up that matter.
The case of De Lorean has been ventilated more than once. Three speeches were made on that topic: by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). The right hon. Member for Mansfield defended the initial decision taken by the Administration to which he belonged. He said that Northern Ireland and, in particular, De Lorean had started to reap benefits at the very moment that the announcement was made.
It is clear that much—but not all—of the money expended on the De Lorean project was expended in Northern Ireland and has accrued to the benefit of Northern Ireland. As it was part of a transfer payment within the United Kingdom, I do not see how it can be denied that it has produced a net increase, which nobody could quantify precisely, in the volume of demand for goods and services in Northern Ireland. To that extent, it has so far proved beneficial. Even if the hon. Member for Knutsford were present he would not, I think, dispute that.
There is another side to this issue, which was sharply pointed out by the hon. Member for Keighley, namely, whether the demand for goods and services—and particularly the demand for employment—is likely to be of a stable and lasting character. For it would very much diminish any benefit which is conferred upon the Province if the result were that, quite suddenly, these operations had to be terminated and a further rearrangement in the pattern of employment had to be sought and painfully brought about.
De Lorean illustrates an important principle which is involved in the use of public money in providing employment and assisting the economy of Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that he believed that in future stable employment in Northern Ireland was likely to eventuate

not so much in the large and spectacular projects but in the development of Ulster-based industry and output. Whether that is so, I do not think that it can be disputed that the use of public money in highly speculative and major products carries a risk, not merely for that public money but for the very people and interests in the Province which it was intended to serve.
Speaking as a Northern Ireland Member, I say that Members such as the hon. Members for Knutsford and Keighley, who have drawn attention to the grave reasons for anxiety in this project, have spoken not against the interests of Ulster but in the general interest. If the hon. Member for Keighley reads my remarks in Hansard, I hope that he will send a copy of his speech to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. Many of the matters which he raised and the questions which he put are matters which it would be proper for that servant of this House, as he has now become, to pursue. We are entitled, through the Exchequer and Audit Department, to an acid examination of the puzzling features in the De Lorean story.
I turn to the Housing Executive and its relationship with the Department of the Environment. I understand that, apropos, the Under-Secretary of State intends to intervene in the debate when I sit down. I am sure that even the Minister understands the wreckage of disappointed expectations and broken promises with which the Province is littered as a result of the administration of the Housing Executive in the last two or three years. I shall refer exclusively—because I can speak from constituency knowledge—to the programme of improvement of rural dwellings. I have no doubt that what I shall say under that head finds its application in other branches of the housing effort in Northern Ireland. All over my constituency, as, indeed, all over the rural parts of the Province, are blocks of houses—sometimes only two or four and sometimes a dozen or more—which were good and satisfactory when they were provided about 50 years ago, and in some cases only 30 years ago, but which are desperately in need of improvement in order to provide the merest basic facilities which would be taken for granted.
In almost every case during the past three years—and probably I could go further, to the last five years—the occupiers of those groups of houses have been given to understand, with more or less precision, that they could shortly expect schemes to link their houses to main sewerage, to provide them with mains water and to add inside toilet and bathroom facilities to bring them up to the minimum tolerable standard.
Up to the end of last year, those of us who were in constant correspondence on this subject with the Housing Executive actually believed that we were able to hold out definite dates and definite prospects to hundreds of our constituents living in these circumstances.
It has been a devastating 12 months. First, we learnt at the end of last year that the whole programme was in the melting pot. In the melting pot it remained until the spring of this year. In the spring of this year, the news came through that the total expenditure which could be possible in the next year or two under this head had to be retrenched. Nevertheless, a programme—admittedly reduced, but a specific programme—would shortly be fixed, and we could then do our duty as Members of Parliament and in a sense, as go-betweens between the Government and the governed, indicate to those who had to be disappointed that we should not forget them and to


those who had reason to expect improvements sooner that they could look for a definite date when that big upheaval in their life, but an upheaval to which they had been looking forward, was to be expected.
But what has happened? There was an even bigger seismic disturbance with the remodelling of the Northern Ireland Estimates in the middle of the year. Since then, as the Minister knows, in repeated meetings with both him and the Housing Executive, my hon. Friends and I have been endeavouring to discern the glimmerings of a programme. I must say that we are less concerned with the total size of that programme than with there being a specific and definite programme, not just for one year but for two or three years ahead, which is definite in that it could certainly be brought within the scope of the finance that is likely to be available.
We had not succeeded in satisfying that curiosity, either from the Housing Executive, which appears to be always on the point of, but never quite achieving, the act of putting in its plans to the Department of the Environment, or from the Minister himself, when suddenly, on 20 November, there came a news release to us all from the Housing Executive. Whatever deficiency there has been in the production of housing by the Housing Executive under its new management, one must be uninhibited in paying tribute to the production of news releases. Occasionally, I think, there is a day in the week when we do not get a news release from the housing centre in Adelaide Street, but there cannot be many such days in most weeks.
This was a speech by the chief executive, and I think many of us would be glad if our speeches were given the same publicity and distribution as the chief executive and the chairman of the Housing Executive seem effortlessly to achieve. During the course of his speech, the chief executive said—and the words are in quotation marks:
Where existing stock is concerned…work to unimproved cottages and special capital schemes should be given priority.
We can all say "Amen" to that. He continued:
A programme of cottage improvement including the use of the 'packaging concept' over a 3 year period should bring the dwellings at least up to the '9 point fitness' standard.
Without going into the details of the technical terms 'packaging concept" and "'9 point fitness' standard", he is saying that in the view of the chief executive of the Housing Executive a programme of three years which the executive regards as having priority and which is presumably regarded as practicable, else I imagine he would not be talking about it, should be sufficient to bring up to that minimal but acceptable standard all the houses which require it in the Province, and that that should be given priority.
What does that mean? Does it mean that there is such a three-year programme and that that programme has been submitted to the Department of the Environment? If it has been, what is the Department of the Environment doing about it? if it has not been, why is the Housing Executive talking about it?
This is exactly what hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland want. It is exactly what they need, to be able to reassure those constituents who have lived for 10 or 15 years with increasingly definite, but always disappointed, promises that they will be given decent living conditions at last—in year one, year two or year three.
The priorities and choice can be defended, though most of us would wish to have the chance of arguing in favour of the schemes within our knowledge which are particularly urgent and of particular long standing. But neither from the Housing Executive nor from the Department of Environment, so far, comes there any answer.
The Minister from time to time, and perhaps with some justice, alleges that he is still waiting upon specific proposals from the Housing Executive. You will not be surprised to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that quite frequently the executive informs us that it is waiting upon decisions from the Department of the Environment. But this is not an evenly balanced, two-way equilibrium.
I am sorry that I should have to say at a more humane hour what I was saying to the same Minister at a later hour early this morning: that the Housing Executive, though it is called a housing authority, is not a housing authority in the sense in which that term is used in Great Britain, for it is the instrument of the Minister and nothing else. It is responsible to no one but the Minister, because it is not elected, it is not responsible for raising its finance, it is not answerable to anybody and its members are not answerable to the electorate. So everything that the Housing Executive does or does not do is the responsibility of the Government, who are responsible for it to the House.
The Government may very well, and justly, say "We have devolved"—blessed word—"the administration of this job, the doing of this job, to this peculiar structure, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive." So be it, but still the responsibility for omission and commission remains with the Government.
What I want to bring home to the Government in this debate, if I can, is that if there is still, after so many years and after the chopping and changing of the past 12 months, no known programme or improvement which over the next three years, or however many years it is, will remove that blot upon the housing face of Ireland, it is the fault of the Government, and it is the business of the Minister concerned to set to work and see that such a plan, agreed with the Treasury, capable under the worst likely conditions of being carried out, is fixed, is known and is set about. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able, when he follows me, to say that he is doing just that.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Philip Goodhart): It may be convenient if I intervene now to try to deal with some of the points relating to the Department of Education and to the Department of the Environment.
I begin with two education matters. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke of the need for a quick decision on the interim report of the Chilver committee. The closing date for representations was the end of November, and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary will clearly want time to give the representations the most careful consideration.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) referred to what he called the damaging effect of the amount of reallocations to education in Northern Ireland. Some desirable projects have had to be deferred, but no teachers have been made redundant. It is worth remembering that in the last year of the Labour Government, when Opposition Members had responsibility for education in


Northern Ireland, the pupil-teacher ratio was higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. Currently, the pupil-teacher ratio is lower in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain, even though it has improved in Great Britain also.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred to a matter that falls between education and environment, namely, the controversy about the Gaelic football pitch in Londonderry. The hon. Member for Londonderry called for a public inquiry into the matter. There are certain problems from a planning point of view because no change of use is involved. The land is in recreational use already and planning permission for a change from one sport to another is not necessary. There is general agreement that it would be wrong to use the planning machinery of the Province to solve purely political problems. While recognising the strong feelings that have been raised by that issue, I must point to the difficulties involved in calling for a public inquiry on planning grounds.
The hon. Member for Londonderry also referred to certain problems faced by his constituents, especially his farming and semi-farming constituents, in relation to improvement grants—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Before the Minister moves too far away from the point relating to the Gaelic Athletic Association, I wish to remind him that I suggested that no more grant aid should be paid to what is essentially a political, if not paramilitary, as well as sporting, organisation.

Mr. Goodhart: No doubt my noble Friend, when he reads the debate, will note the hon. Gentleman's views on that subject. We have discussed the matter in the House before.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: As the Gaelic Athletic Association is the regular recipient of public funds, will my hon. Friend say whether any progress has been made in persuading it to end its ban on membership of those who have served in the Royal Navy, the Army and the police?

Mr. Goodhart: I have heard of no progress in removing that obnoxious part of the organisation's constitution. That part existed when the Stormont Government gave some assistance to the GAA.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not understand the Minister's argument when he says that the planning machinery should not be used for a political decision. In the Ballymena area there was a similar application. It went from the planning authority to a public inquiry. The Minister is still sitting on the report of that inquiry, but it appears that the independent inspector found in favour of the objectors. There was a similar application in Lame. The Minister granted a public inquiry, but the GAA was not prepared to attend the inquiry because it knew that it had no case. Surely, the people of Londonderry are entitled to the same day in court as the people of North Antrim.

Mr. Goodhart: There is a difference between the Ballymena and Londonderry applications. In Ballymena the land in question is not already being used for sporting

purposes. It is not already a football pitch, which is the position in Londonderry. There is a potential change of use in Ballymena, while there is not in Londonderry.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry that the Minister did not care to inform himself of the facts. The area in Ballymena was marked on the plan and approved for recreational purposes.

Mr. Goodhart: I am aware of that. I have visited the site. A football pitch does not exist at present although a football pitch could exist on the site. A football pitch exists in Londonderry. That is the vital and decisive difference for the planning authorities. It makes it possible and desirable to have an inquiry in Ballymena but impossible, even though desirable, to have a similar inquiry in Londonderry.
I move to the less contentious area of improvement grants for the farming and semi-farming constituents of the hon. Member for Londonderry. The essential purpose of the grants is to enable sound older dwellings that are deficient in certain respects to be improved. It is not intended that there should be lavish improvements in the standard of the relevant houses. We administer these improvements with a fair degree of flexibility. We shall consider the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman brings before us.
When it is proposed to use an improvement grant as only a part of a major reconstruction, a fairly rigid line is drawn. It is worth remembering that in the course of the past five years the use of improvement grants in Northern Ireland has increased rapidly from a take-up of about £2·9 million to £29 million. I have no doubt that the grants will continue to be of great benefit to the people of Northern Ireland. It is worth remembering that one-fifth of all improvement grants in the United Kingdom are taken up in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Mr. Wm. Ross rose—

Mr. Goodhart: I shall not give way. There is another speech still to come as well as two more orders.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) reminded us of the number of individual houses, an issue that was taken up most forcefully by the hon. Member for Belfast, West. I remind hon. Members that, even after the 4 per cent. reallocation in the summer, public expenditure on housing services in Northern Irelandstill exceeds £310 million a year. That is a substantial sum in its own right and on a per capita basis it is almost 70 per cent. ahead of expenditure on housing in Great Britain. I fully appreciate that we start with more rundown, dilapidated and inadequate housing in Northern Ireland than elsewhere, but it is wrong to believe that the Province is falling still further behind.
The figures of actual starts and work in hand do not suggest that we are falling behind. In fact, they suggest that we are catching up quite rapidly. As we know, the number of housing starts in Great Britain fell quite sharply in the first nine months of 1980, compared with the first nine months of 1979. Indeed, that has been a general trend throughout Europe and in North America. In Northern Ireland, however, the number of public sector starts in the first nine months of 1980 rose by 300. Prior to this year, on average one in every 35 houses in the public sector in the United Kingdom was started in Northern Ireland. This year one in 18 starts in the public sector is being made in Northern Ireland. If one looks back at the housing statistics


over the past 10 years, one can see that the slice of the national housing cake going to Northern Ireland has never been larger than at present. I have no reason to believe that the allocations for next year will change that picture.
Meanwhile, I note that it has become fashionable and, indeed, customary in speaking or writing about housing in Northern Ireland to ignore the fact that over the past 10 years there has been a very high level of violence which has disrupted the housing scene and, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield freely acknowledged, made it mare expensive. If it were not for the threat of the bomber, we should be able to manage our housing stock more effectively than we do at the moment. If it were not for the continued threat of sectarian violence, I have no doubt that we should get better value for money when it comes to housing contracts.
Sometimes the impact of terrorism is very direct indeed. One of our success stories in Northern Ireland housing has been the co-ownership association, which in the past year has been able to help some 700 families to own or to own part of their awn housing. The association might have been able to help even more people if it had not been burnt out of its offices. I pay tribute to the way in which it got its work on stream again so quickly.
I turn next to comment on two curious aspects of the housing scene that have been touched upon by hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Mansfield and the hon. Members for Belfast, West and Belfast, East wondered how long it would be before the housing lists were cleared up. One of the strange factors is that, while the housing lists are certainly long and contain many urgent cases, there is still a substantial level of perfectly usable and habitable housing property standing empty because it is unpopular.
Earlier this week I had to deal with a letter written by a constituent of the hon. Member for Belfast, East to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There is no doubt, on the face of the letter, that the constituent is in severe housing need. However, she recently refused two offers of rehousing because she does not wish to leave the immediate area in which she now lives.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West rightly referred to the low level of pay in Northern Ireland and its effect on housing. It is curious that, in spite of the undoubted prevalence of low pay, the take-up of the generous rent ebate schemes offered by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is running almost 50 per cent. below the level one would expect. We hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West will join the campaign we intend to launch in the near future to try to ensure that all those who are eligible for rent rebates understand that fact and take up their entitlement.
I turn next to the point made by the right hon. Member far Down, South (Mr. Powell). I agree wholehearted with him that over the past 18 months, and certainly before that, the story of rural cottage improvement has been a sorry one. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Province is littered with broken plans, if not with broken promises. I hope that by this time next year I shall be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and point to the existence of a substantial scheme involving 600 cottages over three years. However, I fully appreciate that after all the words that have flowed on the subject it is improvement and work, not more words from me, that are now needed.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Once more our appropriation debate has taken place against a backcloth of increasing unemployment and economic stagnation in the Province. Every time we have this debate, I or one of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members state that fact. The only difference tonight is that the position is worse and that the problems facing the Province loom larger tonight than they did last time, just as they will loom even larger the next time round.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) spelt out the unemployment figures—91,686, or 15·9 per cent. of the registered unemployed. That is a record, but of course it is worse than that when one considers the part-time workers and many of the women workers who are not registered. In the textile industry, for instance, where they were employed in abundance, the figure is very much higher. The Minister should be aware of that and I hope that we shall have a response when he replies.
The great question that must be asked is "What are the Government doing to meet this problem?" On the one hand, apparently, they are being generous with loans and grants in the order. But, on the other band, as expressed in Class II, Vote 2, much of the increase comes as a direct result of cutting specific grants for modernisation and reorganisation of industry itself. This is at a time when, more than any other, Northern Ireland's industry needs to be given an injection of activity and energy so that it does not lag behind the rest of the United Kingdom in the provision of up-to-date machinery and plant.
The industrial sector in Northern Ireland already has more than its fair share of problems, not least the problem of energy which has rightly been touched upon tonight, without having these additional burdens placed upon it by the order.
We are entitled to ask—and we certainly intend to spell it out—why there are to be no more loans this financial year for industrial modernisation and reorganisation. Why were the interest grants on borrowing for industrial modernisation cut by half? Why is there a cut of more than 10 per cent. in the financial assistance to the Northern Ireland Development Agency? Why is there a decrease of more than 50 per cent. in grants for firms in inner urban areas and a cut of 40 per cent. in loans available for firms in inner urban areas?
I suggest that the Government's obsessive determination to test their already discredited economic theory is working daily to the serious detriment of the people of Northern Ireland.
Before turning to the particular Classes and Votes that I wish to spend time upon, I should like to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, who graphically spelt out some of the problems facing the Housing Executive in Class V. He effectively slapped down the Minister of State, who argues from time to time that the housing situation in Northern Ireland is not as bad as we paint it. He sometimes refers to London by way of evidence.

Mr. Rossi: I do not think that I have ever said that the housing situation in Northern Ireland is not had, nor have I denied the descriptions that the hon. Gentleman may have given. What I have said is that if one looks at some of the London boroughs, with which I am very


Familiar—and I have compared them—one finds that a number of London boroughs have housing deprivation as great as that in many parts of Northern Ireland.
I do not think that it helps Northern Ireland's case to say that its problems are that much worse and that it is being that much more badly treated. That is not the case. If one takes the position in terms of scale and magnitude, compares the populations in the London boroughs that I have in mind—some 3 million-plus people—and compares those people living in deprivation with 1½ million in Northern Ireland, not all of whom are living in deprivation, one gets a different perspective on the situation.
Despite the London problem, we are spending some 35 per cent. more per capita in Northern Ireland than we are in London.

Mr. Pendry: I am glad that the Minister intervened and got that off his chest. I have a table before me, which he can certainly have and which compares dwelling conditions in Northern Ireland and England. If one takes dwellings lacking in internal wcs, the figure in Northern Ireland is 15·7 per cent. and in England, 6·3 per cent. If one compares a particular city with Greater London, the figures are 24·5 per cent. for Belfast and 3·5 per cent. for Greater London. For houses without a bathroom—

Mr. Rossi: Mr. Rossi rose—

Mr. Pendry: Perhaps when I have given several other figures the Minister will wish to dwell on them. For houses without a bathroom, the figures are 23·2 per cent. for Belfast and 4·5 per cent. for Greater London. In Belfast, 26·2 per cent. of dwellings are without wash hand basins, whereas the figure for Greater London is 6·8 per cent. I could go on. Of course, within those figures certain parts of London will be worse than areas in Belfast, but the point that I am making is that speeches from Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office which try to play down the terrible housing conditions in Northern Ireland do no good to the Northern Ireland Office. That kind of talk gets out of perspective the problems that we are trying to ram home to the Government.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for again giving way. It does not help solve the problems in Northern Ireland if one compares Belfast with Greater London and quotes a figure of 15 per cent. against one of 3 per cent. for deprivation. If one takes Greater London, with 10 million people, one includes all the outer suburbs with modern private estates with extremely good housing conditions, which waters down the percentage. Of course, that is included in one's statistical figures for unfit properties.
However, if one takes Hackney, Islington or Tower Hamlets, one will find unfit houses of 20 per cent., 15 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively. Those are the measures that one must use if one is trying to make a fair comparison of housing deprivation between inner city situations.

Mr. Pendry: The point has been made. Those who read the Official Report will perhaps get the message that the Minister was wearing his London hat rather more than he was wearing his Northern Ireland hat.
I return to the debate. As a former agriculture Minister for only a few months, I should like to refer to the

problems involved in Class I, Vote 1. It would be repetition if I were to go over the ground that has already been covered so clearly by the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). They spelt out the problems of marginal land and less favoured areas extremely graphically. I hope that the Minister will reply to those specific points.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) hoped that the Minister would announce when he will meet the Ulster Farmers Union. I am not here to bail out Ministers, but the sooner they meet the Ulster farmers the better. If the National Farmers Union moved a vote of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and approved it, as the Ulster farmers did in respect of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, there would indeed be a U-turn. The sooner the Minister meets the Ulster farmers to talk about the problems facing the agriculture industry, the better. I can tell him that confidence in that industry is at an all-time low. Its ability to get on with the job has been impaired by the Government. I happen to believe that the Minister is a good one—I say that in the context of a Conservative Administration—but the sooner he gets over there and meets the farmers, the better.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) for being out of the Chamber during most of his speech. That was unavoidable. However, I am told by my right hon. Friend that he has been a consistent critic of both Governments. I have found that the hon. Gentleman is more often right than wrong, and I back most of his comments. I return to our plea that a public body should be set up to co-ordinate the provision of all forms of energy to industrial consumers. I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter.
If the present rate of increase in unemployment in the Province continues, one-quarter of the work force will be out of work before next September. That is a sobering thought. The financial help offered by the order pales into insignificance against the wider economic stagnation in the Province.
The fact that loans and development grants are being increased by such substantial amounts is clear evidence that the Government's economic performance in Northern Ireland has to date been woefully inadequate and is a recognition of the failure of their policies to bring about a natural regeneration of the Province's economy.
Can the Minister give any guarantee that any of the increases in development grants or money for industrial loans will lead to an expansion? What does he believe will be the result of the measures? Will they abate some of the problems, especially unemployment, that are so prevalent in Northern Ireland?
Class II, Vote 2, includes the cut in financial assistance for the Northern Ireland Development Agency. It is a reduction in the amount available for grants and loans in selective assistance. At the end of last month, the Under-Secretary revealed that the agency would no longer have a specific role in setting up and operating State industries. Nor will it any longer be directly involved in the rescuing of firms, under the direction of the Department of Commerce.
The withdrawal of such help from State industry and the reduction in encouragement to further State industries will damage the Northern Ireland economy. Passing the buck to private enterprise, as the Government are doing, is not


good enough. Private industry faces far too many problems already without being expected to take the brunt of industrial expansion.
The authoritative report by Mr. Quigley, who headed the Department of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield was in charge some time ago, stated in 1976 that the only hope for the Province, with its special problems, lay in maintaining the level of public expenditure within the context of a strong role for the state, leading, subsidising and directly involving itself in State industries. The Northern Ireland Economic Council has argued that the region is a special case arid that the dangers of pushing back the public sector are much greater in Northern Ireland than anywhere else.
In Class II, Vote 4, the amount required for the expenditure of the Department of Manpower Services on employment services for the seriously disabled, industrial rehabilitation, industrial training and so on totals £1,000. That means that no money is being made available to increase training facilities at a time when the number out of work in Northern Ireland is multiplying by the month. The total pay award to staff at industrial training centres, which is the purpose of the Vote, has been funded mainly by money originally allocated for redundancy payments in the shipbuilding industry, which have been less than expected.
Hidden behind the token allocation in the Vote is a decrease of £1·8 million, which means that the Government are saving on the, Vote. The savings are going into the pool for industrial loans. Will the Minister spell out where the savings are being made?
Is the standard of training to drop? Will fewer people from the register of long-term unemployed be retrained? Or does the Minister intend that the school leavers are to receive a more inadequate service—it is woefully inadequate at the moment—than prevails at present? Does this apparent indifference by the Government to the provision of training mean that the State-subsidised training centres are to be run down? Perhaps the Minister will assure the House on these points when he replies.
As the House will know, the Minister of State—I hope that he will not he dashing to the Dispatch Box again after my reference to him; perhaps he is not even listening—reveated Government plans to transfer the cost of industrial training to the employers, and he aims to have a total transfer of costs by 1982–83. So, at the same time as Northern Ireland employers face a hefty rise in the level of employers' contributions, they are being asked to accept the burden of training and to provide all the additional resources that that will entail. This represents a graphic disincentive for firms in Northern Ireland to train their own work forces. How does the Minister plan to help small firms with the training? These firms are the least able to stake the training contributions asked of them.
The Minister will, I am sure, be aware that his anouncement was received with strong reservations by the employers' organisations, which are fearful that it will result in firms having to meet even higher costs at a time of unprecedented economic problems. There were, of course, criticisms also from the trade unions, which claim that it will result in a decline in training in the Province. In my view, the only way in which uniformity of training can he preserved is through a State-funded scheme. Only through such a scheme will it be guaranteed that we shall have adequately trained labour for small, struggling firms.

The lack of funds for training in the Vote can only serve to reinforce the downward tendencies in Northern Ireland's industrial scene.
On Class VIII, Vote 3, I welcome the provision of £8,000 in capital grants to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to enable the provision of recreational facilities on housing estates. That is a move in the right direction. However, this appears to be financed—perhaps the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—by the cuts in the present provision of funds allocated to museums and the arts.
On the Opposition Benches, we also applaud the move to improve recreational facilities on housing estates. Very often these estates are deserts, and certainly they have very few leisure activities. We hope that it will not be too long before the Minister will be improving on this small financial provision, so that community recreational facilities can be further improved and fostered. However, it is clear that that allocation is the result of a passing thought on the values of social and community interaction through the media of State-financed facilities, for in this Vote the Government are removing support from the museums, thus decreasing their capacity to purchase new items. They are further slicing an already tailored budget to the Northern Ireland Arts Council.
As a result of the reallocation of resources last August, the provision for grants to district councils for sports and leisure services is omitted from the Vote. This has the effect that grants will be cut in this area by £0·9 million. This cut has already had a disastrous effect on the rolling programme of facilities for sport and leisure. I sometimes wonder what the Government have against sport and leisure. During the year, the cut has resulted in a complete freeze on all new projects by both district councils and voluntary sports clubs. The moratorium introduced in Northern Ireland in July has still not been lifted. Consequently no building of new sports facilities has been able to start.
Indoor sports centres which are badly needed at places such as Whiterock in Belfast, Newry, Coleraine, Derry, Lisburn, Ballymena and Cookstown have been deferred indefinitely. Perhaps the Minister will give us some indication that that trend will stop.
That type of cut, in conjunction with the Government's peremptory treatment of the Northern Ireland Sports Council, has seriously curtailed the development of sport in the Province. Those unpalatable consequences are all the more serious in Northern Ireland, where the high rate of unemployment, especially among the young, and the low morale of those young people mean that the temptation to become involved in violent activities is increasing rather than decreasing because of the Government's measures.
Class VIII, Vote 3 decreases the grant in aid of the Arts Council by £300,000. I greet such a depletion in resources with despondency and despair, and I hope that that view is shared by other hon. Members. It means that the agreed revenue grant for the current year will be cut by £72,000 and that, contrary to the understanding of the Arts Council, the Government are not now able to give a separately negotiated grant in the current year for the running of the Grand Opera House in Belfast, which opened in September. The decrease in funds will undoubtedly have a debilitating effect on the provision of theatre and arts services. In an area where leisure facilities are of great importance to the stability of the community, it is


remarkable that the Government can so brazenly lop off such a vital sum of money from an important and widely supported body.
I should like to focus here on the financial cloud hanging over the opera house. Despite the unwelcome news of the financial resources being cut, the council went ahead and opened the opera house. Not to have done so—I am sure Ministers realise this—would have entailed substantial cancellation fees and the loss of substantial related income from the box office. As an emergency measure, the Arts Council has decided to divert funds to cover the operating deficit this year. But what about next year? Will the opera house—a glowing achievement in Belfast, and an undoubted centre for culture and entertainment—be allowed to close because the Government reneged—that is a strong word, but I believe it is the right word—on their undertaking to negotiate a separate grant for its future operation?
I am about to refer to the Secretary of State, so I wish that he would look less bored. He and the Minister responsible for the Department of Education were present at the opening of the opera house. At that time, the chairman of the Arts Council in Northern Ireland spoke directly to them. Hon. Members who were not fortunate enough to be there might like to hear some of the words that were spoken. The chairman said:
We have accepted with as great a grace as we could muster the severe blow that your decision dealt us … We confidently hope … that when you are planning for the next financial year and the ones to follow, you will be able to fulfil the understanding that always underlay this venture.
Those were sober words, but it is clear from this appropriation order that they have not struck home. If they have struck home, will the Minister confirm that the grant for the opera house will be reinstated in the next set of Estimates for Northern Ireland? If not, will he make a statement on his Department's view of the future of the opera house and the arts in general in Northern Ireland? One broad theme stands out: the arts, sport and leisure services in Northern Ireland are under heavy attack, and the very survival of publicly financed facilities is now in serious jeopardy.
I turn now to Class VIII, Vote 4. As always, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) raised some important points.
I note with alarm that no supplementary sum is made available for Class VIII, Vote 4, which normally refers to the provision of funds for the education and library boards. As if that news were not bad enough for the education and library boards, it seems that the Government have squeezed £6·2 million out of the resources available under the reallocation of funds announced in August.
These facts can have only one consequence for the education service in Northern Ireland. Without more money, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, jobs will go, the provision of books and equipment will be hit and the standard of education will be in jeopardy.
Therefore, we must put some pertinent questions to the Minister. I come first to the question of nursery schools, which we debated last night. The provision of nursery places during the past two years has been a drop in the ocean compared with the level of need. Some 38,000 nursery places are needed if all 3-to-4-year-olds in Northern Ireland are to receive adequate nursery education. There are just over 5,000 places at present.
The passage of the education order last night means that the obligation of the boards to provide nursery education will be reduced to a discretionary power. Despite what the Minister said last night, I believe that there will be a downward trend in the number of nursery places in Northern Ireland.
The nursery system is already suffering from the reallocation of funds. All capital expenditure programmes have been halted. The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps he will pass a piece of paper with the information to his hon. Friend when he replies to the debate. Most nursery assistants in the north-eastern education board area are already receiving redundancy notices. The pressure on the boards to make savings may result in other boards adopting a similar mode of action. The future of nursery education, if it has a future after the order that was approved last night, has never looked so grim.
As regards the provision of books, on which the hon. Member for Belfast, West touched, few will dispute the importance of having up-to-date textbooks for the purpose of teaching in both primary and secondary schools. So far this year, three of the education and library boards have made no increase in the book allowance because of the Government's cash limits. The other two boards have increased theirs in line with inflation.
Northern Ireland is well down the field compared with other education authorities in mainland Britain when it comes to spending on books and teaching materials. For example, a survey by the National Association of Schoolmasters showed that an authority in mainland Britain spends £29 for each primary school child. In Northern Ireland the figure is between £11 and £14. The figure for secondary schools in mainland Britain is £58 per head compared with between £30 and £37 in Northern Ireland, depending on the board.
The fact that there is no supplementary allocation for education and library boards in the order books bodes ill for next year. It is unlikely in the extreme that the boards will be able to bridge the disparities in the provision of books which I have outlined, given the stringent cash limits. It would seem more probable that the disparities will grow ever wider next year and the year after unless action is taken urgently.
In the same Vote there is provision for teachers, particularly substitute teachers. Some £400,000 has been saved on the employment of substitute teachers, but that has done nothing to save educational standards in Northern Ireland's schools. The sum involved is paltry compared with the harm that the cut in supply teachers will have on the education of youngsters in the Province.
Following the circular sent round by the Department of Education in mid-October, the employment of a substitute when the class teacher is absent for less than four days has been stopped. Instead, in all schools with three or more teachers, classes must double up for any period of absence of less than four days by the teacher. The saving is marginal, but the effect on three-teacher schools is devastating, for teachers can face the prospect of classes of up to 50 children of varying ages for more than half a week if just one of their number is absent. This petty saving means that headmasters no longer have the power to call in substitute teachers. As a result, parents in one area have been told to keep their children away from school.
In the hunt for yet more spending cuts, the Department of Education and Science has pressurised education and


library boards into cutting back on the provision of school meals. During the passage of the Education Bill in 1980, the Secretary of State for Education and Science clearly stated that the Government's intention was not to attack the school meals service.
In Northern Ireland, the education and library boards are directly responsible to the Under-Secretary of Stats. I do not know which Under-Secretary is responsible, but he cannot be sitting on the Front Bench. If he were, he would be listening. Indeed, the Minister is in the other place, and that is why scant regard is paid to the question of school meals. The intermediaries of local government cannot be used as a scapegoat in Northern Ireland, as is the case in Great Britain. In Great Britain, the Secretary of State can argue that local authorities are doing the dirty work. In Northern Ireland, the Minister is responsible for the cut in the provision of school meals.
The price of a school meal has leapt from 40p to 50p a day. A considerable number of jobs has been lost. Approximately 700 kitchen staff have been made redundant. Not one of the 700 staff appears on the unemployment register. There has been a 25 to 30 per cent. reduction in the hours of the remaining staff, the "Guiness Book of Records" should have a special supplement for Northern Ireland. It would be a best seller. The Government have broken an incredible number of records in Northern Ireland.
Such a supplement might spell out to those who want to listen the problems that face Northern Ireland. Ministers seem to be lethargic about those problems. They spend too much time doing other things and do not move round the Province1 as their predecessors did, uncovering problems and trying to solve them. I am sure that there will soon be a reshuffle in the Government. I bet that there is a queue of those on the Government Front Bench who want to give up first. Before Ministers give up, I hope that one of them will have the guts to stand up and fight his corner and that of the people of Northern Ireland. At present, 1 would not like to bet on who that will be

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): At the conclusion of an appropriation debate, it is, traditional to answer some of the questions that have been raised. If I am unable to do so or if time does not allow me to do so, I hope that hon. Members will agree to correspondence.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asked whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would meet the office-bearers of the Ulster Farmers Union. Indeed, that point was also raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I assure him that my right hon. Friend and I have met the UFU on several occasions. I also assure him that we are willing to do so again. I am in the process of writing to the UFU and I shall invite it to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the same time. I understand that that is what the UFU wants.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde also referred to the Arts Council and the grant for the opera house. As a result of the reallocation exercise this summer, the Arts Council in Northern Ireland was advised that no additional funds would be available to meet any deficit on running costs for the Grand Opera House. However, Lord Elton has indicated to the Arts Council that he accepts in

principle that some additional funds should be made available next year to help with the running costs of the opera house. The exact level of Government support for the project has not yet been decided.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the money in the order. A total of £10 million of the £48 million addition from the contingency reserve was used to finance the services of the Northern Ireland Office. The balance of the £48 million, with the £50 million which was reallocated internally, is being used for services, voted and non-voted, for which the Northern Ireland Departments are responsible. I believe that that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the order and its remit.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) asked about the abolition of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I apologise for being absent during his contribution. I remind him and the House that the reason offered in the report on the reform of the supplementary benefits scheme is:
The Government believe that it is essential to revise the present legal structure and that issues of policy should be decided by Ministers in Parliament rather than by a non-elected body such as the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
That is a significant reason, which has led to comparable decisions here.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked about the salmon fishery on the north coast, among other matters. I fully understand the ravages that have occurred in that fishery due to illegal fishing and poaching. I also understand its importance as a recreation facility and important amenity for the local population. We have difficulties in controlling the problem I have undertaken to meet the Minister responsible for fisheries in the Republic, Mr. Power, to see whether we can find ways and means to strengthen the controls applied to that fishery. I shall try to do that as soon as possible.
In this debate, as in its predecessors, the majority of hon. Members have made contributions around four or five common themes. It is right that I should devote most of my remarks to the main themes which illustrate hon. Members' anxieties.
One theme was energy. It was referred to by most speakers, including the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). The hon. Member for Antrim, North chided me severely for having taken a decision on the second stage of Kilroot in relation to electricity generation. I assure him and the House that no decision on the second stage of Kilroot has been taken. If my comments to different delegations have been interpreted variously, I am not surprised. I understand that any word in any communiqué or statement by any Minister, be it in the North or the South, is capable of manifold interpretation.
Electricity supply is the subject of a departmental working groups which has concluded the first stage of the preparation of a report which we expect to be in Ministers' hands shortly. The group has the wide remit of examining the generation and distribution of electricity throughout the Province. That will form the basis of important decisions which will be laid before the House in due course.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Minister would not want to misrepresent me, but when he reads Hansard tomorrow he will realise that I did not chide him by saying that he had made the decision. I asked him to tell the House tonight what the decision really was, as some delegations


that went to him came away with the notion that he had made a decision and others came away with the notion that he had not. I did not chide the hon. Gentleman on that, though I chided him on other things.

Mr. Shaw: I shall be "bechide" myself with anxiety if I get it wrong for the third time.
I turn to the question of gas, which featured in many contributions, notably that of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). He and I have had a number of discussions about gas. Indeed, we have had a number of exchanges of letters about gas. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I can at least come to one superficial conclusion: that this matter, affecting about 3 per cent, of the Province's energy requirements, has absorbed an enormous amount of his time and mine and the time of the Government.
I deeply regret that the decisions announced last July are clearly not acceptable to the hon Gentleman, but I must remind him, as he continually seems to suggest to the House that—I think I quote him directly—the Government are killing off the gas industry, just how vigorous an industry it is. Is it making money? It is not. Is it gaining customers? It is not. Is it increasing its market share? It is not.
The gas industry in Northern Ireland has, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman and I fully understand, been in significant decline and is costing the taxpayer, both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, a significant amount of money. If it were not for the fact that the Government have been offering to underwrite its debts, the question of killing off the gas industry would not arise. I very much doubt whether consumers would be able to pay the full market price of the fuel currently supplied through the town gas undertakings.
The context in which we took our decisions is that the indigenous industry is in severe decline. That must be common ground between us. The question of what then happens is a matter that we have debated widely in the House. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the present exchange of information on the Coopers and Lybrand study produced facts and figures which were new—new, indeed, since July 1979, when the first formal statement of the Government's intention was made to the House.
I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand that it would be fatuous if the Government used old data when new data were available. We must be able to uprate the actual cost of energy, based on oil in large measure, as the oil prices vary. He would be the first to criticise if the Government sought to justify their action on data that were obsolete. It is inevitable that there are these changes in some of the data, which I know he found difficult to accept when we had our most recent discussion on the matter.

Mr. McCusker: The hon. Gentleman sought to show that the industry in Northern Ireland was moribund and on its last legs. It is, but why? It is because it has been denied access to the resource that regenerated the gas industry here. It has only 3 per cent, of the market in Northern Ireland because people there are being asked to pay 90p or 100p per therm. The hon. Gentleman's Government are having heartburn about asking people here to pay 25p per therm.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that the industry has run down because the price of the fuel on

which it exists has exceeded the willingness of its consumers to pay. But, if it is a question of what the Government should do about it, the decision taken last July stands, in that it related to the construction of a gas pipeline between the mainland and Northern Ireland.
Since then, as the hon. Gentleman will know—I acknowledge his interest in the matter—there have been comments from the Government in the South about the supply of gas from the Kinsale field. That led to a meeting between me and the Minister for Energy, Mr. Colley, in Dublin last week. The hon. Gentleman and others are most anxious that I should give the House information on that matter. I can say that we had a most useful exchange of views. Mr. Colley gave me a clearer insight into their proposals for developing gas extraction from the Kinsale field and their plans for its distribution. We have agreed that the next step is for the South—

Mr. McCusker: The Republic.

Mr. Shaw: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. We have agreed that the next step is for the Republic to provide more detailed information on such matters as price, quantity and timing of any supply that might be on offer to Northern Ireland so that we can complete our evaluation within the next few months.
I wish to make two points clear to the House. First, although the information that I had from Mr. Colley was new, it would be wrong for the House to adduce a firm prospect of supply until all the details have been properly evaluated. There is much work to be done. Secondly, such supplies, if they materialise, will not necessarily be an alternative to the existing operations of all gas undertakings in Northern Ireland. They would not totally avoid closure in all cases. Work that is in hand on the preparation of the rundown scheme must continue, but I undertake to the House, the hon. Member for Armagh and others who raised the issue that I shall make another statement when we have evaluated the prospect of supply from the Republic. It is not by any means the lifeline or panacea that has been suggested in the press. I guarantee to examine that prospect with the greatest possible care and speed, because I understand that it is an extremely important matter.
Apart from energy, the most common theme raised by hon. Members concerned industry, unemployment and the difficulties that face companies in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Mansfield, who opened the debate for the Opposition—

Mr. Wm. Ross: Before the Minister strays from the subject of gas, will he say something about the report by the Department of Commerce?

Mr. Shaw: As far as I am aware of its origination, the report was one of many documents, about 30, that were exchanged between the Department of Commerce and the team conducting the review. Whatever its individual characteristics, there can be no doubt that the report that the working party produced subsumed both that document and many others in its final recommendations to Ministers. As an individual document, it does not have the relevance that hon. Members and the media seek to ascribe to it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister comment on the queries raised by a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), about


compensation? Is it not a fact that those who intend to continue with bottled gas will not receive any compensation?

Mr. Shaw: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, who raised the matter during the debate. The compensation terms that have been published indicate that a scheme will be designed for approved appliances and approved fuels. We are still considering the details, and no decision has been made on the question of bottled gas. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall endeavour to reach a decision as soon as possible.
I turn to the question of industry and, within it, the question of several of the Province's major industries. I must accept that the present conditions in which industry in the Province finds itself are extremely difficult, whether it be new, indigenous industry or well-established industry'. We know full well the reasons for that. In large measure they stem from the substantial inflation in our domestic economy and from the substantial decline in the markets for most products for which the industries in Northern Ireland are competing. The severe reductions, especially in man-made fibres, were referred to by a number of hon. Members.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield made a specific reference to the rate of industrial development. At the commencement of the year, the rate of industrial development as measured by new jobs and interest in establishing companies in Northern Ireland was running high. It was running higher than in the previous year by a substantial percentage. However, that has not continued in the last quarter, and I expect that the rate of job creation will not be much larger, if at all larger, than last year's rate. It may be slightly lower than that. The House will understand that the climate within which new investment is brought to the Province is now so difficult that it is not surprising that job creation in the current year is at a lower level than that of 1979. If it is around the 1979 level, that will be no mean achievement, in my humble estimation.
Against that background, there must be greater stress upon indigenous operations. I accept the comment that jobs saved are perhaps easier than jobs created and, no doubt, less, costly. I assure the House that the schemes of the Department of Commerce to help viable companies—companies that can demonstrate long-term viability but are in short-term difficulty—remain available. They are being used significantly.
My hon. Friend the Member for New bury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) dwelt in significant measure upon Harland and Wolff. It is true that the shipbuilding industry, and within it Harland and Wolff, is facing great difficulties. I cannot answer in full the comments of my hon. Friend, because he is touching on commercial confidentiality in talking about penalty clauses. The Government are seeking to encourage the company in searching for new orders.
The market in which the shipyard competes, the large bulk tanker or carrier market, has shown some sign of improvement in recent months. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that the crucial factor in a market that is extremely competitive is reliability on price and delivery. It is essential that I use this opportunity to emphasise that the yard seeks to impose upon itself the discipline of improving its practices,

improving its delivery prospects and guaranteeing that quoted prices will be the prices on delivery. That is up to management and men.
There are signs of improvement from the initial indications of steel-working productivity. However, every industrial relations hiccup is another threat to the company's reputation and to the attempt to say once again that Harland and Wolff is not only in business but in the business of guaranteed deliveries and a recognition that performance is the sine qua non in its tender. I hope that all hon. Members, especially those whose constituents are working within the shipyard, will do all that they can to encourage the attitude that I have described among those who operate in the yard.
My hon. Friend was critical about diversification. Although the cobbler should stick to his last, that would be an admirable thing if lasts, or, indeed, shoes, were in demand. However, the fact remains that we cannot allow time to pass without seeking other possible alternatives to establish viable undertakings. That is the remit of the diversification team, which I hope will report initially in the late spring of 1981.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to Short Brothers. I confirm that the 1980 corporate plan has, of course, been approved. The uprating for the subsequent year is in the hands of the Department and is being carefully examined.
The other major industrial company that has been mentioned is De Lorean. I apologise to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) for somewhat roughly interrupting him. I know that his interest is genuine, but it sometimes tries us to find somebody who suggests that he is a friend of the company and wishes it to succeed asking questions or raising issues that appear to undermine the company's confidence. Let us be quite clear. The company is at the moment engaged in the final run-up to bulk production. The hon. Gentleman asked for further details. Bulk production will be commencing by the end of this month. There will be deliveries into the United States in February and March.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newbury asked me when the car would first go on show. It will not be at the United States motor show but will be at a trade show in Los Angeles on. I believe, 6 February. Thereon, orders will be processed.
I say to the hon. Member for Keighley, and in absentia to my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), that the dealerships, which still number 350 in the United States, are still very keen to obtain the units which they have ordered, for which they have paid a deposit and through which they become shareholders in the enterprise. We have recently conducted a small sample survey among them, bearing in mind that the price, as both hon. Members indicated, is inevitably affected by the movement in the pound-dollar relationship, and they have all shown that they are still extremely keen on taking up their options, which would indicate to us that the rate of sale of 20,000 units per annum is still initially a rate that can be aimed at.
The position on De Lorean is that the company is on stream for its spring launch, and I trust that hon. Members—even those who are most sceptical of the costs involved—will sincerely hope that a return may ultimately come to the taxpayer in the form of units sold to customers who enjoy using the product.
Last but not least—indeed, I regard it as the most important issue—I come to agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) made an eloquent plea on behalf of dairy farmers, and the hon. Members for Londonderry, Antrim, North and others were most anxious to make certain, if certainty was required, that the Government gave to the farming industry its due share of attention, investment and encouragement.
It is inevitable in a year when Government expenditure has been under severe pressure that the agriculture industry, too, should not be immune. Hon. Members are well aware that we have had to take painful decisions over support systems and grant-aid. However, I wish to emphasise that the agriculture industry in the Province still enjoys a substantial level of support. A number of schemes are available and improvements have been made.
Since the Government came to office some 18 months ago, the devaluations in the green pound have eliminated a major cause of concern in the agriculture industry. There have been positive MCAs of 10 per cent. There is a beef cow premium now of £12·37 per cow, a variable beef scheme of £35 per cow, which is above the market rate, and intervention buying of beef at the rate of 800 tonnes per week currently. There is a 20 per cent, increase in the hill compensatory allowances and an increase of 75p for hardy hill sheep. There are also in negotiation through the EEC plans for the structures of agricultural support, including the £8 million improvement to the intensive livestock sector spread over four years and the £37 million scheme over 10 years for the development within the less favoured areas.
Those are solid achievements in respect of agriculture. I recognise that the industry feels that it is not enjoying the rate of support that it would wish to have, but I am bound to say that in severe economic difficulties the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland is far from forgotten.
May I also remind the hon. Member for Antrim, North, who was highly critical of our lack of attendance at Brussels, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for negotiating these matters in Brussels. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been delighted that the matter was handled by, with, from and within the United Kingdom and that a United Kingdom Minister should be the man to speak for Northern Ireland on these issues. He speaks with a strong voice for Northern Ireland on many matters. I know full well that he is well briefed by what my right hon. Friend and I have to say to him, but he is no slouch when it comes to standing up for Northern Ireland,

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Scottish Minister accompanies the said Minister when he goes to Brussels?

Mr. Shaw: I can assure the hon. Member for Antrim, North that my right hon. Friend recently received an invitation from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to accompany him to Brussels when there was an opportunity to do so. I have little doubt that my right hon. Friend will take up that invitation.
Agriculture, therefore, enjoys a commitment which I honestly lay before the House from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and from other Ministers. I

accept that at the moment it involves extreme difficulty, such as is encountered by anyone operating in an industrial capacity in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Mills: I accept all that my hon. Friend has said about the tremendous aid that is being given to other products, but will he answer the question about milk aid? That is the crucial issue in Northern Ireland now.

Mr. Shaw: Milk aid represents a major contribution for the Northern Ireland dairy industry towards producer returns. It was not available for the current year. The position for next year is still under discussion. Whatever that decision might be, however, the fact remains that we must look within the milk industry for improvements in and the development of the marketing technique and improvements in the relationship between producer costs and consumer price. My hon. Friend knows that at its present price level milk is already suffering from consumer resistance. Distribution, however, is showing itself to be more competitive in trying to sell milk through shops.
These are all ways in which the market will have to change. I beg hon. Members and farmers in Northern Ireland to understand that it will not be sufficient to rely only on the past practice of producing to a price and seeking Government support for the deficit on cost. Changes in marketing practice may be required, not just because the Government are seeking to reduce expenditure but because the consumer preference has changed.
We must develop higher added-value agricultural products to lay a more profitable foundation for Northern Ireland agriculture.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What about the less favoured areas?

Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend and I have sought to discuss whether it would be possible for Northern Ireland to proceed on its own on the matter of LFAs. We have concluded, however, that there must first be an agreement on whether land throughout the United Kingdom will be included in the LFAs. It would be wrong for the United Kingdom to make a piecemeal approach to the Community on this issue. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the commitment to conclude the regrading of the LFAs by walking the land and examining it with care is being undertaken vigorously. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has agreed that it should be concluded by, if not before, the end of 1981. That in no way means that he or the Government have any commitment about what then happens, but at least the effort will be put in to make sure that the regrading takes place.
The right hon. Member for Down, South made a most important point about De Lorean when he asked whether there was a considerable risk that the company might not be stable in the longer term. Many hon. Members may feel that. I emphasise strongly that in looking to the future of Northern Ireland industry, whilst I accept that smaller companies—I hope that many will be encouraged to set up in business—will provide a significant contribution, to establish a concern that might employ, say, 1,000 people involves taking a significant risk. The lessons we have learnt from man-made fibres and other industry that is under severe pressure indicate that the cycle of a whole industry may be relatively short in terms of human years.
While that is no excuse for the Department of Commerce not looking for stable long-term industry, I believe that it is incumbent on all hon. Members to


recognise that things will not be the same in the future as they have been in the past. We are looking for industries which may develop and disappear. New industries will follow, and they will also have a significant span of life.
There is one respect in which De Lorean is important. Northern Ireland has a number of significant industries built around the motor car. It has Goodyear, Michelin, Autolite and General Motors, all making components for motor cars. It now has one, I hope major, assembly plant as well. It will, therefore, have a motor industry.
Northern Ireland has an aerospace industry, both in components and in the manufacture of whole aircraft, to which we hope to add the Lear Fan development on the very frontiers of the technology involved in aerospace. Likewise, it has a major shipbuilding industry to which, hopefully, through diversification we might add other ancilliary enterprises which utilise these skills.
It is in that way that we look to find new catalysts around which the industries of the future will grow. Both for industry and agriculture, we must travel hard and hopefully.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Mr. Robert J. Bradford(Belfast, South) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): If the hon. Gentleman wishes lo speak on this order, I remind him that he will not be able to receive a reply from the Mimister. But, of course, he has every right to speak.

Mr. Bradford: I should first like to explain my reasons for this uncharacteristic and unorthodox behaviour. It is a matter which relates to the altitude of the Chair, which will be the subject of a discussion in another place at another time. I apologise to both Front Bench spokesmen for this unorthodox approach.
My speech will not unduly lengthen the debate. I had intended to contribute earlier, but that was impossible for reasons beyond the remit of the debate. I shall, however, try to contract my remarks in the interests of the business which is to follow.
I want to address myself to three classes in the order. The first is Class II. I appreciate that the Minister's reply will come in writing, and I shall be happy to receive it. I wish to ask the Minister responsible for commerce whether he is in a position to confirm that Short Brothers and Harland will receive the important Canberra refurbishing contract, which will accrue £7 million to the company if the contract comes its way. I should like the Minister to confirm in writing, if he can, that Short's will obtain that contract.
Before moving to Class in, which forms the main burden of my contribution, I want to make a general point about the: reallocation of money in the middle of the financial year which has taken place in Northern Ireland. I feel that it is quite wrong and injudicious to tamper with financial allocations to Departments in the middle of the financial year, for two reasons: first, because it creates such uncertainty in the respective Departments and, secondly, because it causes great havoc with the current programmes in the respective Departments.
The greatest iniquity is that the money was reallocated on the pretext that new jobs would be created in Northern Ireland. Because I doubted that, I asked the Secretary of State

how many new jobs have been created by the diversion of the financial allocations from each Department since the date on which the freeze on public expenditure for the purpose of job creation was announced in Northern Ireland".
I was told by the Under-Secretary:
It has been made possible for us to provide £7 million to Harland and Wolff …£14 million in the form of a repayable loan to …De Lorean …and £20 million to the Northern Ireland electricity service to enable it to hold down its tariffs."—[Official Report, 13 November 1980; Vol. 992, c. 453.]
The reply added that in the first 10 months of this year about 5,800 new job opportunities had been created in the Province. That answer confirmed my worst fears. The money diverted from each Government Department did not create a single new job. It was used to finance old Government debts. The claim that new jobs would emerge was sold to the people of Northern Ireland. The reply that I received was spurious.
The De Lorean project did not create a single new job. The electricity payments are needed only because the Government refused to link Northern Ireland with the national grid, and Harland and Wolff has not been given a fair share of Ministry of Defence orders. The simple conclusion to which most sensible people in Northern Ireland come is that the Government, by their ineptitude, created the need to rob all the other Departments in Northern Ireland to pay old debts rather than to create new jobs.
We deplore the lack of clarity in the future housing programmes in the Province. We are almost in mid-December and we still do not know what programmes are to be initiated for 1981–82. Presumably, some time in the new year the Government will get around to informing the people of Northern Ireland where they can expect new houses to be built and rehabilitation programmes to get under way. It is improper for the Government not to have decided earlier where new programmes will be initiated and in what conurbations renewal will rake place, Is there any end to the Government's ineptitude upon ineptitude? Ministers may well ponder these details. The people of Northern Ireland have received a shoddy deal in housing.
The diversion of £12¼ million from the Housing Executive and of £3 million from housing associations has caused great hardship. Not one justification of those diversions has manifested itself in the past three or four months.
I turn to the effects of the diversions. First, there is an effect in terms of industrial and commercial contraction. I do not want to go over some of the details that have already been given about the effect on the construction industry, but we have about 20,000 jobs undermined in the industry. Lest the Government nod their head in a sort of holy horror, I remind them that I asked the Secretary of State recently how many jobs had been lost in the construction industry in Northern Ireland from the announcement of the freeze on public expenditure. I paraphrase the reply. It was that between 10 July and 9 October, a mere few weeks, the number of persons registered as unemployed in the construction industry increased by 3,791. The reply stated that the so-called freeze or moratorium affected the construction industry only marginally. So the loss of almost 4,000 jobs is a marginal effect upon the construction industry. The construction industry has about 55,000 people, so we are talking almost in terms of the entire percentage of the


unemployed in Great Britain. That is what is called a marginal effect on the construction industry in Northern Ireland.
We look at all the attendant disciplines and professions which are related to the construction industry. We take note of what the quantity surveyors say. They say that about £300 million will be needed in the current year if the construction industry and the attendant professions are to maintain their work levels.
We listen to the chartered accountants. We also listen to the consulting engineers. They tell us, quite simply, that if the current level of public spending in terms of construction is not maintained they will lose more than half of their consultants in Northern Ireland. One company stressed that just by going south it could not only stay in business but get a subsidy for undertaking work in Northern Ireland if that work could be and was obtained.
I wanted very much to relay to the House in detail the views of these very important and very responsible people. They make one point which I will leave with the House, and it is this. If all the expertise in the consultants, the engineers and the chartered surveyors is allowed to dissipate and disappear, it will not return to the Province. When there is an upturn in the economy and when buildings can get under way—remember that we are talking of 80 per cent, of all the building in Northern Ireland being done within the public sector context—the expertise will not be there to take advantage of that upturn. So much for the consequences on the construction industry and the attendant professions.
I turn now to the social consequences. They will be dire for the elderly. The Minister responsible for housing has been very assiduous in pursuing housing for the elderly and has tried to help even within the restrictions of the moratorium and the cutting off of funds. He is well aware that Northern Ireland shares a dreadful problem with the rest of the United Kingdom—the care of the elderly. If the Government's own statistics are to be believed, Northern Ireland requires 9,000 sheltered dwellings—I hope that that figure has been noted—by 1985. We have currently 900 in the Province.
Compared with the rate of progress in the rest of the kingdom, that is a very poor figure. The consequences for the elderly will be dire unless the housing association role is restored to its full potential. Because the housing associations deal mainly with the elderly, the financial allocation to them should be a matter of serious consideraton. From time to time the Minister has done his best to reassure my colleagues that he has not missed this important point.
I put a figure on what the associations will need in the coming financial year. They have a programme that could absorb £30 million. Hon. Members who are realistic will appreciate that they will not receive £30 million. But it is clear that if the awesome figure of 9,000 sheltered dwellings by 1985 is to be tackled with realism, we shall have to strike for a figure that is close to £30 million.
Last year, the housing associations were given about £15 million at the outset, but that was reduced by £3 million. It is clear that for the next financial year we are talking in terms of not less than £20 million, if the home ownership associations are included. If we exclude the home ownership associations, the least the housing associations should receive is about £15 million. Only in

that way will the housing problem of the elderly be tackled with realism and in a way that will give some assurance to the thousands of elderly people in Belfast, particularly East and South Belfast. I ask the Minister to consider the figure of £20 million if the home ownership associations are included and £15 million if they are not included.
I turn now to the dire consequences for the inner city dwellers. My constituency is, of course, an inner city constituency, and it evidences the great need for renewal and redevelopment. Whatever the global figure offered to the Housing Executive may be, I suggest that the Minister should determine that some of that money will be spent in rehabilitation. That is the most cost-effective way of spending money on housing. That is why I push the housing association programmes and why I suggest that the Minister should encourage the executive, as a matter of policy, to undertake rehabilitation as opposed to new building in green field areas. There is no doubt that redevelopment is needed within the inner city of Belfast.
The Minister for Housing and Construction has visited a number of areas in my constituency, including some of the most atrocious little homes. They are not atrocious because people want them to be so. They do not have any option. The houses have no slates, no drains and no inside toilets. If the Housing Executive is not given a realistic amount of money to enable it to transform the inner city of Belfast, without wanting it to be so, the blame will have to be laid at the door of the Government.
I suggest two programmes that should be shared with the executive as a matter of Government policy. They should embark on rehabilitation—which is cost-effective—alongside the housing associations. They should also embark on a comprehensive programme of new building in the inner city area.
I should like to ask the Minister a simple question. How much will the Housing Executive receive as its global figure? Will he, as a matter of Government direction and directive, state that rehabilitation must play a large part in the Government's future programme? Will he also encourage them to undertake redevelopment in the inner city?
I do not want to indulge in parish pump politics, because the hour is late, but the Secretary of State would do well to listen to what I am about to say instead of explaining the niceties of this peculiar situation to the Leader of the House. Certain areas in my constituency have received promises of action on renewal for five years, but nothing has taken place. When will Annadale flats figure in a refurbishing scheme? When will the Department of the Environment accept that there is no longer any reason to delay the Flush Park flats scheme, despite the little quibbles about the heating programme? The Housing Executive is prepared to proceed immediately with that scheme without introducing a revolutionary heating scheme. My constituents are prepared to take what is being offered, unlike many other parts of Northern Ireland where the people appear to be suffering from compensationitis and "Gimme, gimme, gimme".
As I said, my constituents are prepared to take what is offered by the Government. But what will it be? Will it continue to be zero? If so, we are all in a sub-zero gain situation. I hope that the Government's conscience is such that it will afford them some peace and sleep at night if they continue to ignore the just demands of my constituents in Annadale and Flush Park.
Finally, I turn to Class XI, Vote 7, which refers to the flow of information. When are we to get information about the dialogue between the Government and the hunger strikers? Presumably, part of the agent's business is to inform Members of Parliament about the ongoing dialogue.
Ten clays ago, I asked the Secretary of State when he would issue a directive to his office to cease all communications with the Provisional Sinn Fein. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not aware of any conversations and that his office was not indulging in any talks with the Provisional Sinn Fein. But we now know that a leading civil servant has entered the prison and is explaining the minutiae of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. That did not suddenly hop out of a bush or emerge out of the blue. Talks have been going on with Sinn Fein for some time under some pretext or umbrella
The Secretary of State may think that he is indulging in a nice, cosy little subterfuge. In 1974, the then Administration tried the same tactic and it was exposed and destroyed. Exactly the same will happen to the nice, neat little subterfuge being indulged in by the present Administration. The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This debate is primarily on a matter affecting Northern Ireland Members. One would have thought that a Northern Ireland Member who attends throughout the debate and rises continually to be called would be called before an English Member who has not been present all the time. I should like to record my regret that a Northern Ireland Member was not called to make his speech until after the Front Bench closing speeches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was not in the Chair earlier. I have only just come into the Chamber. If the hon. Member had been in the Chamber at about 9 o'clock, before the commencement of the wind-up speeches, he would have been called. It is always the practice of the Chair to call hon. Members who are in the Chamber before the wind-up speeches. I can only assume that the hon. Member was not in the Chamber when the wind-up speeches began.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 26 November, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Financial Provisions)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 26 November, be approved.
The order is one of a series generally required at intervals of about two years, and it fixes the upper financial limits within which issues may be made from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund for particular services. It does not prescribe the amounts allocated or appropriated for those services. That is done in the financial year by appropriation orders such as the one that w e have just debated.
I turn to the purposes of the various articles in the order. Articles 6 and 7 provide for the remuneration of a whole-time president of industrial tribunals and the remuneration and pension of a whole-time chairman of such tribunals. The provision for these payments is similar to that already existing in Great Britain.
Article 8 makes provision for pensions to be paid to persons serving as part-time members of the Northern Ireland electricity service and is similar in content to existing provision in Great Britain for the electricity industry.
Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that this order covers a number of detailed subjects. If, as a result, points are raised to which I am not in a position to give an immediate answer, I shall reply by letter. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I shall not detain the House for long as it wishes to discuss the next order as soon as possible. Perhaps it would be better to ask the question that I have in mind by means of a letter. Is the Minister or the Department any nearer to achieving the rationalisation schemes involved in articles 6, 7 and 8?
I had the onerous duty of trying to rationalise payments and jobs in Northern Ireland. I had to try to get them into certain categories so that we should not be faced by the problem of trying to sort out salaries and benefits afterwards. I have often had to discuss the wages, salaries and conditions of the people running the various organisations. I do not wish to know how much is involved but I require an explanation of why the remuneration of a president or chairman of an industrial tribunal is backdated to 1979 and the pensions to 1 October 1980.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to raise a matter relating to the limits on grants and loans for capital works on harbours. I represent a constituency which contains the only large island off Northern Ireland, which is inhabited by about 100 people—Rathlin island.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: They are all Catholics.

Rev. Ian Paisley: They are not all Catholics. A few Protestants are still alive in Rathlin. I know the way that they, and some of the Roman Catholics, vote.
Rathlin island has had a serious problem for some time. At the turn of the century 1,000 people lived on the inland. The 100 people who now live there depend for their livelihoods on fishing. The harbour has been allowed to deteriorate. Great difficulty has been accorded to the fishermen through that deterioration. In times of storm, their boats have been smashed and great hardship and financial inconvenience have come to them.
For many a long day I have heard representations about Rathlin island. Ministers have visited the island with me and on their own. They know the need for work to be done on the inner harbour of Rathlin island.
On 4 November the Minister told me that aid had been sought from the European regional development fund for the proposed inner harbour development at Rathlin. Is this covered by the order? When is the work likely to commence? A complementary scheme is essential to Rathlin. I refer to the Ballycastle harbour, which is the nearest harbour on the mainland. In the same reply, the Minister told me:


The Government have no plans at present to develop Ballycastle harbour."—[Official Report, 4 November 1980; Vol. 991, c.530.]
I was amazed at that reply. Is the Minister aware of the serious inconvenience which is being caused? The other month there could have been a loss of life. When waiting for the ferry at Ballycastle, people were swept away off the harbour wall.
I could talk of the development of other harbours which are necessary for tourism in my constituency, as could other hon. Members representing coastal areas. The Government cannot shelve the problem. What progress is being made?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Thanks to the Northern Ireland Act 1974, the order combines in its various articles provisions most of which in respect of Great Britain would require a separate Bill. One or two of those Bills would be the basis of a substantial debate upon policy.
I have in mind in particular article 5, which increases the financial limit for the Northern Ireland Development Agency. Despite the long debate which has just taken place on the appropriation order, there has not been, apart from this order, an opportunity in the past 18 months to review the functions of the agency in the context of the other Government agencies or methods for providing the assistance of public finance to industrial development in Northern Ireland.
It so happens that last week, after a very long gestation, which has held up the agency's work and decisions, the guidelines for the agency were, I understand, finally approved and issued. There should therefore, strictly, be at this point a consideration or reconsideration of the Government's new policy in regard to the agency and of its working in relation to the powers of the Department of Commerce and the Local Enterprise Development Unit.
I do not propose to invite the House, even in the remaining hour and a quarter that is available on the order, to engage in that task, though it is one necessary to be performed. But, having studied the new guidelines which embody the policy of the 18-month-old Government, and having read them in conjunction with the agency's report and accounts for 1979–80, which have just been published, I should like to put on the record at any rate one reflection.
The guidelines are very insistent throughout in their determination that the agency's operations shall be essentially commercial. I read one or two specimen injunctions:
15. The Agency will invest only in companies which have a prospect of profitability.
18. In providing guarantees the Agency shall fix the terms and conditions so that it should expect to sustain no net aggregate loss on them in the long term.
20. Any investment made by the Agency … in companies in which it has …a controlling interest will be subject to the Agency satisfying itself … that there is the prospect of a rate of return appropriate to the investment in the light of the Agency's statutory purposes.
All this is very consistent and very admirable philosophically. Here is an agency which is to apply public money only where, upon its best view, it discerns the prospect of a commercial profit. Not only that, but it is to

receive no special favours other than those which are implicit in its capital being financed by such provisions as that which is before the House, for paragraph 22 runs:
Companies controlled or financed by the Agency are not to be given any unfair advantage, whether through the availability of public funds or other means.
So it is an unexceptionable free enterprise document, one might almost say, except, of course, that it is guidelines for the provision of public capital to a development agency which is a creature of statute.
That raises the philosophical problem of how there can be all these commercially profitable opportunities floating around in the air which can be released only by the insight of the agency or by the availability of capital which is being borrowed, I presume, as part of the public sector borrowing requirement and re-lent to the agency by the Government.
That observation leads on to the main point, the only substantial point that. I wish to throw out in that connection. As one reads the account of the operations of the Department of Commerce at the one end of the scale and the Local Enterprise Development Unit at the other, and that pure commercial enterprise that is now interpolated between the two in the shape of the Northern Ireland Development Agency, there is something that one misses. There is some function that might properly be the function of the State to which none of the three agencies appears satisfactorily to correspond. That is what I may not adequately describe as the preservation and improvement of the infrastructure of the whole Province as an economic unit.
Quite clearly, many schemes that would strengthen the communications of the Province are not likely to take a form that enables them to qualify under the guidelines for the development agency. Yet one does not gain the impression, when viewing the work of the Department of Commerce as a whole, that it is in a position to identify major infrastructure requirements and systematically to set about fulfilling them. Paradoxically, although Northern Ireland has three bodies which, if they do not overlap, are concurrent in being charged with the economic development of the Province with the assistance of public money, the most obvious, classic activity of the State in sustaining and promoting the economy is difficult to locate in that structure.
I have given the example of transportation. It is perhaps the easiest and most obvious. If one looked at transportation in the form of the air communications between the Province and the mainland, if one looked at the sea communications—the shipping routes and the exploitation of them—between the Province and the mainland, and if one looked at the internal communications, especially the rail communications, one would be immediately convinced that in all those three areas the weakness of the infrastructure is the limitation upon the possibilities of economic development in the Province. I do not believe that the Northern Ireland Development Agency will be able, within the guidelines that it now has, to address itself to the problem. The question then remains whether the Department of Commerce is able to do so, not so much by the nature of the finance that it commands or with which it is provided but by the attitude of mind and the functional character that it has within the Government.
Although we are not able to debate, as we should debate, the whole question of the promotion of the economic well-being of the Province or the new roles


within it that the new guidelines give to the development agency, there is one major question that I have put for consideration by the Government and for public discussion in the context which this order provides.

Mr. Rossi: I shall try briefly to reply to some of the issues that have been raised in this short debate.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) asked me about the retrospective nature of articles 6, 7 and 8. Articles 6 and 7 are being made retrospective to date from the appointment of the current chairman of the industrial tribunal. That was recent, and it was felt only fair that his job should be kept in parity with the similar job in Great Britain. Article 8 is similarly designed to treat fairly the recently retired chairman of the electricity service—namely, to ensure that his pension, as from the commencement date, is on parity with the pension system in Great Britain. That is why we have been slightly retrospective in those regards.
I turn to the contribution of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Article 4 increases to £15 million the sum that the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture may make available to harbour authorities for the execution of harbour works. There had been expenditure of £11 million by 31 March 1980. The object of the article is to make available another £4 million over and above that which has already been committed.
As I said in opening the debate, the article deals with upper financial limits and not with particular cases. Rathlin island is a matter for an appropriation order. I shall draw to the attention of my lion. Friend who is responsible for the Department of Commerce the remarks that have been made in the debate. I shall inform him that the issue of the harbour facilities at Rathlin island is causing anxiety. It is a matter for negotiation whether the project will be able to have a priority claim on the money that is available over other harbour authorities. I cannot help the ton. Gentleman any further on that matter tonight.
As always, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) brought an interesting philosophic dimension to the debate. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not fellow him into that discourse. He mentioned the guidelines laid down for the Northern Ireland Development Agency and commented upon their free enterprise commercially oriented aspect. The agency is concerned primarily not with infrastructure but with encouraging and assisting industry, new industry especially, to start in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will recall that in the past assistance has been given and that regrettably the companies that have been assisted have, after a short time, proved to be unsuccessful. It could be that there was not a close enough examination into the viability of those enterprises before public money was put into them. The object of the guidlines is to try to ensure that a critical commercial examination is made before public risk capital is put into a venture, and to ensure that jobs are created that will last and will not be mirages that disappear after about 18 months.
As for infrastructure, the road surfaces that I have seen in Northern Ireland are about the best in Western Europe. Perhaps air communicators could be improved. That applies to sea communications, too. These matters are primarily not for the agency but for the Government

through the appropriate Government Departments. That is where they are considered and that is where decisions are made.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising these matters. He is right to say that we have not had an opportunity to debate them in recent months. He will understand that his observations will be carefully noted and considered.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 26 November, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 3 December, be approved.
We have only one and a half hours for this debate but, nevertheless, I think that the House will expect me to follow the usual custom on these occasions and review the state of law and order in Northern Ireland as well as explaining the reasons why I am inviting the House to approve the order tonight.
Overall, the level of violence in Northern Ireland has continued to decline in 1980. Compared with the figures for last year, the number of deaths has fallen by one-third and the number of injuries is also substantially lower. Explosive attacks are down by about one-third and the number of shooting attacks is lower than last year. Of course, the figures; are still deplorably high and each incident represents an intense tragedy for the victims and their families which no statistics can possibly disguise.
The terrorists are no nearer achieving their objectives than they ever were. I do not think that anyone will wonder at that if we consider one of the most recent examples—only yesterday—when terrorists prepared an elaborate ambush for policemen, drew the policemen into that ambush, fired on them, injuring three of them, and shot an innocent woman bystander in the back in the meantime. They have no regard for human life whatever, whoever it is. It is small wonder that they are being increasingly rejected by the community.
As for their so-called "political" philosophy, such as it is, it has been shown to be totally irrelevant to the reality and immediacy of the problems that the people of the Province face. I cannot pretend to the House, however, that the problems are over. These people still have a capability to cause death and destruction, and I am afraid that they will continue to attempt to grab the headlines with outrageous acts.
I have been especially concerned in recent months by the increase in the number of seemingly sectarian attacks. I condemn unreservedly and without hestitation all those who commit violent acts, whoever they are and whatever so-called cause they claim. Let them be in no doubt that the security forces will continue to act impartially and resolutely against all who break the law, whatever their political and religious persuasions. I say the same to those who threaten to take the law into their own hands to deal with particular groups of terrorists.
Anyone who steps outside the law, for whatever reason, will find that the security forces will act against him. It is for them, and them alone, to enforce the law. They have become increasingly successful at this, which in my view shows that the policies we have been following for some time are right. I am sometimes urged to take more extreme measures, but I believe, if I were to do that, that I would destroy the free society we are trying to protect and at the same time give a fresh impetus to the terrorist campaign.
The best way forward continues to be the enforcement of the law according to the law, with the police in the lead, supported by the Army as necessary. This involves the slow and painstaking investigation of crime, the arrest of those responsible, the bringing of charges in the courts and the proving of those charges in the courts according to the law.
The process is not dramatic and, unfortunately, is seldom prominent in the media. But its effectiveness is clear. So far this year, for example, 539 people have been charged with scheduled offences, including 62 with murder. The police are managing to bring to court not only those who have committed offences recently but those who were responsible for crimes committed a number of years ago.
The demands made on the RUC and the Army every day in the course of their work are considerable. Not only are they subjected to murderous attacks, but there are those who are always trying to provoke or defame them. Yet the professionalism, courage and dedication with which they carry out their duties remain undiminished. I pay tribute once again to the skill and fortitude of the men and women in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the RUC Reserve, the Regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment.
I am also very encouraged by the evidence of increasing acceptance by the minority community of the RUC as the legitimate upholders of the law and as a fair and reliable force they can turn to when necessary. This growing acceptability is itself a tribute to the impartiality and professionalism of the RUC. I want also to thank the police and the Army for their help with the temporary prison which has been necessary to ensure public safety during the industrial action by the Prison Officers Association. It is a mark of their dependability that security operations in the Province as a whole have been unaffected by this additional burden on them.
The RUC continues to grow in strength and capability. At the end of November the regular force stood at 6,874, well on the way to the target strength of 7,500. The police authority is engaged in a major building programme for the RUC. The force has a fleet of almost 1,500 vehicles; and a varied programme of equipment purchases has been designed to keep the RUC abreast of advancing technology. In addition, a force-wide computerised teleprinter service, now in operation, is designed in particular to increase the force's reaction speed and to facilitate the collation and retrieval of information. The police service is matching this increased capability with a growing sensitivity to the needs of the community.
The extension of normal policing, the growth in the size and capability of the RUC and, of course, the decline in the overall level of violence have allowed us to make significant reductions this year in Army force levels. It has always been our policy not to keep more troops in the Province, over and above the normal garrison, than the

security situation demands. The Army remains fully capable of providing the RUC with such military support as it continues to need. Naturally, the reductions have been made in those parts of the Province, such as the centre of Belfast, where we are confident that the police can cope without the Regular Army's immediate support in strength. In the border areas the Army's strength is relatively much greater and, in addition, the RUC is working closely with its colleagues in the Republic, who have had notable successes recently.
The House will be aware that there have been a number of marches and demonstrations recently, supposedly in support of the prisoners on hunger strike. This support is misguided, but the Government recognise that everyone has a right to express his view, provided always that he does so peacefully and unprovocatively. I am glad to say that most of these demonstrations have passed off peacefully. The police have used their usual tact and discretion in handling them; and they will continue to do so. But I must warn the House that there are those in the Province who may—I believe will—seek to engineer confrontations either with other sections of the community or with the security forces themselves. Their intention will be to further their own ends by violence. I hope that demonstrators will think twice about being blatantly used in this way and that they will not allow their feelings to be manipulated into support for completely different objectives from their own. The security forces will, of course, be prepared to take firm action if, in the professional judgment of their commanders, this becomes necessary to preserve the peace.
As for the prison hunger strike itself, the House will be aware that seven men are in the seventh week of their hunger strike at the Maze prison and that they were all moved to the prison hospital on 2 December to enable the medical staff to keep closer medical surveillance over them. Three women prisoners at Armagh started to refuse food on 1 December. The seven men are continuing to lose weight. So far the position remains that their condition is not giving cause for serious concern, but if they persist in their refusal of food it may not be long before we begin to see signs of substantial deterioration.
The prisoners have made it plain that the object of their strike is to secure political status. The Government have made it quite clear that they cannot and will not concede that status and that they have already provided a humanitarian prison regime but that they are ready to consider genuine ideas for improvement in the regime for all prisoners from those who share their concern.
We must not lose sight of one basic fact. The protest movement within the prisons, from which the hunger strike stems, is one important arm in the strategy of the Provisional IRA. Its struggle to destroy law and order and overthrow democratic institutions in Northern Ireland does not stop at the prison gates; it is continued through other means inside. The protest is designed to contribute to its objective of securing political legitimacy for a movement whose only weapon is violence. It is also part of a wider attempt to discredit the measures that the Government have been compelled to introduce to protect society from terrorism. These, of course, are the measures that we are here to discuss and, I hope, renew today.
It is right that people should question the Government closely on the need for the powers in the Emergency Provisions Act. Over recent years, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has played an important


role in analysing these powers and the Governmant's use of them, and in come cases recommending; that they should be changed or dropped. We welcome constructive criticism of that kind, even when we have not been able to follow it in practice. However, from the terrorists and those who support them and their methods of persuasion I am not prepared to accept that line of criticism. It would be absurd if the Government, after introducing certain measures to deal with terrorist intimidation and other criminal practices, were moved to withdraw these measures in response to complaints from the terrorists themselves.
There is one way in which the Provisional IRA and other organisations can most quickly contribute to the dismantling of the temporary legislation that we have to deal will the emergency—that is, to give up violence and take the path of democracy. They might recognise at the same time that they have by their evil activities immeasurably set back the legitimate political aspirations of the people whom they purport to serve. In the same way, I might add, the protest movement and the hunger strike inside the prison have complicated the Government's efforts to introduce progressively an improved regime, simply because heightened tensions invariably slow down progress. Nevertheless, this Government, like their predecessors, take seriously their obligation lo subject the emergency powers to thorough inspection, with a view to allowing any that are not still essential to lapse. As the House will recollect, the power of detention was allowed to lapse in this way six months ago. As the position improves and further opportunities arise, we shall take them.
The sections of the Act to which objection is most commonly taken today are all associated with the functions of the courts. They are the terms on which judges consider applications for bail in the High Court, in section 2: the rules governing the admissibility of statements by suspected persons in the case of allegations of ill treatment while under interrogation, in section 8; and the regime' of the so-called Diplock courts, where judges sit without juries, in section 7. The first two points have been so thoroughly discussed in these debates in the past 18 months that I shall not tonight again rehearse the Government's arguments for retaining the provisions in their present form at this point. I shall only say on bail that the position has not changed, except to the extent that I have noticed that the High Court grants bail to suspected persons in a very significant number of scheduled cases. On the admissibility of statements, I have again noticed that the courts on occasion find reason to stop a trial on the ground that the prosecution has not fully discharged the obligation put upon it in the Act to disprove an allegation that ill treatment took place.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Hon. Members have been asking the Secretary of State over the past 18 months about the operation of the Diplock courts. Is his mind closed on the subject? Is he really saying that there is no chance of a. changed policy?

Mr. Atkins: There is every chance that we can change he policy if the security situation improves. I have already said that we can dismantle the whole apparatus. If the terrorists would turn from the path of violence to that of democracy, we could do so at once. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, he will see that I say at the end that I do not recommend that we should do it now.
The comments about these courts go to the heart of what I have said about the terrorists bringing these provisions upon themselves. The system of Diplock courts exists because jurymen, like witnesses, have been scared away from doing their duty by threats to their safety. What is fundamental is the nature of the crime. Murder is murder, whatever the motive. Acts involving explosives or firearms are not less harmful because they have a political aim. They are just as harmful and abhorrent, whatever their aim. That is the fundamental yardstick by which we judge them. And that is more important than the fact that, in order lo meet terrorist methods, we have had to introduce some variations from the normal into the, system. But there is no variation in the standard of justice. Besides, what variations there are are compensated for by a number of safeguards.
One such safeguard is the full application of the recommendations of the Bennett committee on police interrogation procedures and practices. These are more far-reaching than the regulations applied in other parts of the United Kingdom—indeed, than probably anywhere else in the world. It is a further safeguard that every complaint of ill treatment is fully considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions there is no element of discretion here. I would also regard the consideration of all bail applications in scheduled cases by the High Court, rather than the magistrates' court, as a safeguard—as is undoubtedly the unfettered right of appeal from conviction and sentence in scheduled cases.
I therefore have no qualms about asking the House to continue the temporary provisions so long as the objective need seems clear. I recognise that there is a wider dimension. However fully justified the provisions may be, considered purely as a response to terrorist activity, it remains true that their effects spill over much more widely within the community. There are social and political consequences which need to be balanced against the requirements of law and order.
I know also that there is a sort of inertia about these matters. It is easier to continue to shelter behind these powers than to determine at a certain point that they are dispensable. But I can assure the House that the Government are most conscious that these powers are merely temporary. When the Act was passed, Parliament intended that they should not be permanent, and the sooner we can return to a state of complete normality in Northern Ireland, the better However, in the circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland today, I am not able to recommend that any of the provisions should be allowed to lapse at this moment.
The situation in Northern Ireland is still a very sensitive one. I know that the House will share my view that it is essential to confront these problems calmly and to say and do nothing that would inflame passions. I am committed to the welfare and protection of every citizen of the Province, and I am sure that other hon. Members will approach this debate from the same point of view.
I invite the House to approve the motion.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: It is obviously right that an Act such as this should be brought before the House for renewal at least every six months. This is a short debate, and already nearly 20 minutes of it have elapsed. I shall therefore try to get through my speech as quickly as I can, and I certainly waive the Opposition's right of


reply. From looking around the Chamber, I think that that is what the House would require. Many hon. Members will want to speak.
First, I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to all our security forces, whether they are the RUC, the Army, the UDR or others. I also extend my sympathy to the victims—and their relatives—whether in the security forces or in the civilian population. The vast majority of that civilian population would like nothing better than to get on with its ordinary daily life under rules of law and order markedly different from those that apply at the moment.
I should have liked to regard the order simply in terms of its renewing the powers and to consider whether the powers are right. It is incumbent upon the Opposition, however, to say something about the H-block hunger strikers.
We do not wish to make this situation any more difficult for the Government. We have no wish to see anyone die as a result of this strike. I met a lot of these gentlemen pretty regularly, and they left me in no doubt whatever about their aims and objects. In fact, they often told me that I could come up with any kind of concessions that I wanted—any kind of gifts, as they put it—but the only thing that mattered was special category or political status. Unless things have altered dramatically, I have no reason to believe that the situation has changed. From what the Secretary of State said tonight, that appears to be the case.
There is always the danger in Northern Ireland—I was always left in no doubt about this as well—of genuine, humanitarian gestures being seen as a sign of weakness. To a great extent, that encourages the strikers, or those who have control over them, to go for the one thing that matters, which is special category status. I am not saying that it is wrong to offer genuine changes in prison conditions, but if that is to be the case they must apply to the prison population as a whole, not just to one category. People ought to understand that it is not a question of prisoners in Northern Ireland catching up with the privileges enjoyed by prisoners in the United Kingdom. It is the other way round. The privileges granted in Northern Ireland—one has only to consider the remission aspect—are much better than those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Anyone who thinks that the H-blocks are some kind of monstrosity ought to read the May report. The prison service in Northern Ireland is virtually completely new. All the buildings are new and are built on the best lines available. The May report was extremely complimentary about the prisons in Northern Ireland and held up the Northern Ireland prison service as a model for the prison service in Great Britain.
The Opposition certainly stand with the Government in their decision not to allow political status or anything of that nature to the strikers, and agree that they should resist blackmail of this kind. We should remember how we got into this situation in the first place. Special category status came about because the then Government gave way to political strikers and to the same type of blackmail as is taking place today.
I understand why at that time there was a lot of pressure on the Government to give this a chance. It was felt that it might do the trick and stop what was happening in 1970, 1971 and 1972. As a result, we were loaded with special

category prisoners, but it did not take long for the House and the powers-that-be to realise what a mistake that was. Anyone involved in these matters at the time will remember that.
The Opposition back the Government in their stand against granting special category status or privileges, and we shall also go along with the Secretary of State if he wishes to make reforms to the whole prison system, as I have outlined.
The bringing forward of the continuance order every six months allows Parliament to scrutinise what can at best be described as exceptional law for exceptional circumstances. It is an Act that all of us, in normal circumstances, would have no part of, but, from what the Secretary of State said, the situation is far from normal. There is a possibility that further trouble lies in store. Whether from the hunger strike, sectarian violence or from other quarters, the threats are real.
After the exchanges in the House yesterday and today, I expected the Secretary of State to damp down feelings about what happened in Dublin. He ought to tell us whether the H-block situation and the hunger strike were discussed. We are particularly concerned about the words in the communiqué
covering a range of issues including possible new institutional structures, citizenship rights, security matters, economic matters".
The phrase "possible new institutional structures" has caught fire among certain sections of the community in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State should explain to the people of Northern Ireland what is meant by those words. He must try to ease some of the fears in the Province.
The statement is ambiguous and open to innuendo and misrepresentation. The Secretary of State would do Northern Ireland a favour if he gave us some information about what happened in Dublin. If he thinks that action that might help to end the strike is best kept close to his chest, he has only to say so and the House will accept that it is a security matter and leave it at that.
This leads me reluctantly to the conclusion that this exceptional Act is still needed. That is why the House should renew the powers for another six months. I am one of those who like to ensure that the provisions in the Act are only the minimum necessary for tackling the emergency and run for the shortest possible time.
We should also be aiming, as the situation warrants, to restore the law in Northern Ireland to normality as quickly as we can. Having been involved in a number of renewal debates and having listened to all the advice from various quarters, I know that one tries to judge whether various sections are still necessary against the background of the ever-changing security scene. One tends to go for safety first and is reluctant to make changes for fear of upsetting the whole Act. I understand the reasons. Lives are at stake. If we make a mistake, people will lose their lives.
On one occasion, we had virtually agreed to make certain changes to the Act, but we hurriedly had to change our mind because before we came to the House we had the terrible La Mon massacre. The House would not have understood if we had tried to make changes at that time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) suggested in the previous debate that it might be time for another judicial review of the Act. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), the Secretary of State said:


The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. There is a case for rewording section 2. I have admitted that already. I do not think that there is a case for dropping it altogether"—
he made the same point tonight—
because of the possibility that we might return to the position hat I have described before the emergency arose. We can consider rewording it, but we are not considering that tonight. We are considering whether to renew it or to drop it. It is my judgment that we must keep it for the time being. If amending legislation is produced, we shall consider how best we can deal with it."—[Official Report, 22 July 1980; Vol. 988 c. 433.]
Once the Secretary of State starts saying those things, he is admitting that here is a part of the Act that he thinks should be reviewed or rewritten but that he is prepared to leave it in because the practice seems to be going right. All I am saying is that there is also disquiet, imagined or real, about section 8, which deals with the admissibility of statements to the police.
There has recently been a major study of the legal system in Northern Ireland, which has produced a series of criticisms of the judicial process and security policy. It is the view of the Opposition, as was stated in the last debate, that the time is right for another judicial review of t tie Act. The only judicial review of the Act was carried rut in 1974–75 by the Gardiner committee. It led to the phasing out of detention, which I, with many others, welcomed.
There are many, if not all, hon. Members who abhor the need for this type of legislation tonight, but I can assure tie House that those of us—I do not think that there are many of us left in the House—who had the responsibility for carrying out this legislation and for carrying out the detention procedure hated the power it gave to the individual Ministers. The power of one's signature to sign people into detention on intelligence and ether reports is a power that I do not wish to have again. I was told that the first time was the hardest. I can remember that night very clearly, because it certainly was hard. I can assure the House that I never did get used to it. So I and the other Ministers were pleased with the outcome of the Gardiner committee. It gave us another way.
That is why it is the Opposition's view that the time is now right for another review. The terms of reference of that committee in 1974 would be just as suitable again. They were:
to consider what provisions and powers, consistent to the maximum extent practicable in the circumstances with the preservation of civil liberties and human rights, are required to deal with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland, including provisions for the administration of justice, and to examine the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973; and to make recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd made certain suggestions, as reported in column 440 of the Official Report of 22 July 1980, to the effect that there could be in advantage in appointing as many of the Gardiner committee as were able and willing to serve on the new review. This would be a great advantage. As the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, the terrorist scene is always moving and has certainly changed since 1974. In fact, the Secretary of State in his opening remarks was still saying that the incidence of terrorism was continuing to decline, but that does not mean that he was net right in anticipating that there could be further problems very shortly.
The first review dealt with the situation as it was in 1974. We need a good review to see whether all the emergency powers are now necessary or are in the right

form. Some of the anxieties felt about the Act by outside bodies and by Members of the House could be alleviated. One thing is certain: in succeeding debates the information gained would greatly help the House.
The Minister of State, in his winding-up speech of 22 July 1980, took this as an interesting suggestion and said that he would consider it without commitment. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could give the House his considered views on this matter tonight so that we may learn whether the Government are any nearer to a decision on this matter. I put that forward as a serious suggestion, because, having had to operate the system, I know how much we favoured the previous report and how it helped us to judge many of the other matters.
The official Opposition will not vote against the order. We feel that it should be enforced for a further six months. However, I cannot help but hark back to the meeting on Monday, because I should have liked the House and the people of Northern Ireland to have been treated with more sympathy and respect. I hope that in his reply the Secretary of State will say whether any reference to the Act was made in Dublin and, if so, whether there were any suggestions that it should be amended, and, if so, how, or whether it should continue in its present form.

Mr. John McQuade: All thinking people agree that effective deterrents are needed to defeat the IRA. Capital punishment, the most effective deterrent, has been refused by this Government, and so the IRA has been given a green light to continue to kill, with the legal safeguard that its members will not be killed. "Murder as many times as you like, but you will not forfeit your life": that is the message from this Government and their predecessors, both Labour and Conservative. So the people of Northern Ireland are left as easy prey to the IRA murderers, this Government thus providing an incentive to murder.
The only other deterrent—that of effective imprisonment—has been partly destroyed, and it now seems likely that it will be wholly destroyed. The preservation of the IRA murderers evidently has top priority with the Government rather than the preservation of the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland. The present offers that have been made to the IRA, and the offer of even more negotiated concessions, constitute further incentives for the IRA to increase its campaign of blood.
Last week, the Secretary of State offered to those convicted IRA criminals on the "dirty" protest the following: exercise in sports gear; six extra letters per month, three in and three out; two visits a month instead of one; an extra hour of physical exercise a week; one evening association a week in prison uniform; access to books and newspapers—which are already available in the cell blocks but not taken—in the rooms where masses are held on Sundays; closed visits as an alternative to body search; and compassionate home leave on the same basis as for prisoners who are not on "dirty" protest. One daily hour of exercise has always been available to the "dirty" protesters.
The Secretary of State has now declared that he is prepared to deal further with what he calls the humanitarian aspects of conditions arising from the


protest. He is also prepared to talk with anyone who shares concern about it. The IRA has won the first point of its protest, namely, that such prisoners are different.
If this Government concede the least bit more, the Protestant people will be convinced that what has lurked in their minds for a very long time, and what they have been most loth to believe—namely, that the British Government have decided to betray Ulster and back the IRA's objective of a united Ireland—is a stark reality.
I warn the Secretary of State in the plainest language that Loyalists in these circumstances will be forced to take the most drastic of measures to defend themselves and preserve their heritage. The determination of the Protestants must not be underestimated by the Government or this House. Something must be done now so that anyone sentenced to imprisonment does imprisonment. We must not give way and let them have what they want. Now is the time to carry out the punishment imposed by the courts.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes, because my opinions on certain aspects of security in Northern Ireland are well known. I shall try to put into words that the House will understand the reasons why I have taken my stand.
I left the House on Friday afternoon and arrived in Belfast that evening. On entering the door of my house, my wife said "Read the Belfast Telegraph editorial." I read it. It began by stating
Mrs. Irene Brown died today.
The next sentence was
Irene who?
Then it went on to tell the story.
Eight weeks ago in Portadown, Craigavon, Irene Brown, a Protestant housewife with a loving husband and two young children, had everything to live for. Somebody did not like her because she was a Protestant, and a petrol bomb was thrown into her home and she was very badly burned. For eight weeks she lay in agonising pain, with her husband and young children watching her until she died on Friday.
Yesterday, the police in Strabane received a telephone call that a robbery was taking place in the area. They got into their van and went to the Kilcolman housing estate. As they got out of the van to go to the house where the robbery was allegedly taking place, IRA gunmen on the other side of the street, in a house in which they were holding the family captive, opened up with their rifles and seriously injured a detective, and an innocent woman was also badly injured by a ricocheting bullet.
A few hours ago in my constituency, a young man of 19 who was on his way home from work—I understand that he was a part-time member of the UDR—was shot dead in Durham Street.
When the people responsible for those three crimes—burning that young Protestant woman to death, injuring the detective and the woman, who is seriously ill and may die, and killing the young man today—are apprehended—and I pray to God that they are apprehended quickly—will anyone in his right mind and senses say that they should be given special category or political status? Those three crimes can be multiplied 100 times over the past few years in Northern Ireland.
Yesterday afternoon, after the attempted killing of the detective and the woman in Strabane, a courageous parish priest, Father Anthony Mulvey, appealed to his parishioners to withdraw any support that they may have been giving to the H-block hunger strike protest because, as he said, compassion is indivisible; compassion for anyone must be the same for everyone. There cannot be compassion for the hunger strikers without compassion for their victims.
I believe that Father Anthony Mulvey is the voice of a thousand priests and nuns in Northern Ireland—people who so far have not made themselves heard as clearly as they should have done. I accept that there are half a dozen Catholic priests in Northern Ireland who can easily be identified. Inadvertently or not, they have given support to the Provisional IRA cause. There are only half a dozen such priests. Thousands of priests do not support the campaign of terroism.
Those who are guilty of such heinous crimes—be they Catholics who burn people because they are Protestants, Protestants who cut people's throats because they are Catholics, IRA gunmen who shoot people who are members of the security forces, the police, the UDR, the British Army, or be they members of the UDA or the UDF—are criminals. They are motivated by a criminal intent. They do not deserve compassion, because they do not show it to their victims.
Should we renew the emergency provisions? Since the Act was placed on the statute book, I have voted against it. Tonight, I shall do so with an easy conscience. There is no contradiction in my stand. Emergency legislation that is couched in such language is not appropriate to the circumstances. In Committee, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I opposed the abolition of jury trials. We are political opponents, but we did everything that we could to maintain jury trials in Northern Ireland.
I know the situation in Northern Ireland, and I am the first to recognise that it would be impossible to have jury trials there today. Both the Loyalist crowd and the Republican crowd would seriously intimidate juries. It is time that we had two assessors to sit with the judge. In the Republic of Ireland there are three judges. If the Government were to consider that possibility and to appoint assessors, much of the criticism that is levelled at the Act would disappear.
The Government should not say that, although the Act is draconian, it will remain on the statute book until the last shot has been fired by the last terrorist. The Government must continue to try to improve the legislation and to wrong-foot the terrorists. They must not allow the terrorists to be able to say that it is the Government who have no compassion or humanity.
In no circumstances should the Government consider giving privileged treatment to those who have been imprisoned for such heinous crimes. They should continually seek to introduce reform for all prisoners, born in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. I ask the Government to consider appointing assessors to sit with the judge if juries are at present inappropriate.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: It is an honour to speak after the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary


of State will not close his mind to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the effect that the Diplock courts should be reformed.
In 1885, there were difficulties in Ireland. The Home Secretary in the Gladstone Administration, Sir William Harcourt, spoke of
an Irish nation in the United States hostile with plenty of money".
As my right hon. Friend knows, I spent last week in the United Slates of America and had the good companionship of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who was born in Ulster. We went to New fork, Boston and Washington, and we put the harsh necessity of the legislation we are considering to religious and political leaders, and to the media.
The
Irish nation in the United Stales
is more numerous than the Irish nation in Ireland. We did not find it generally hostile. The large amount of money that is diverted though that murderous charity NORAID to the Provos has diminished, although presumably the purpose of the hunger strike is to extract new funds. One indicator of a reduction in foreign finance for the IRA is the number of bank raids in the Irish Republic
We found misconceptions of the emergency powers legislation. Misconceptions ire not confined to the United States. Leading articles in quality newspapers argue that if only the Government would show humanitarian concern for the hunger strikers a way out of the difficulty could be found.
All prisons are hateful places. On 4 December, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Mat land), the Secretary of State described a regime in, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) acknowledges, the most modem and well appointed prison in Western Europe and the privileges available to prisoners who conform.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, West and others have said, what humanitarian concern did convicted terrorists show their victims? The status that they demand has been declared inadmissible, not only in all quarters of the House but by the European Commission of Human Rights. It is a status never granted in the Republic of Ireland, which, to meet the common enemy of democracy, resorts to the Offences Against the State Act. If, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) reminded us, the demand for special status were conceded, it would surely not be the list demand to be made on appeasing authority.
If these people were given prisoner of war status, the conclusion that one must draw is that they should be tried as war criminals. One thinks particularly of 19 prison officers murdered in cold blood.
We shall, with great regret, renew the emergency powers tonight. We take note of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that any emergency powers no longer needed will be dispensed with. Despite the emergency powers—and this is not universally understood—the police and the Armed Forces are required to operate entirely within the law and are accountable to the law. Every complaint against a member of the security forces is thoroughly investigated. Police officers and soldiers have been prosecuted in the courts for criminal offences arising out of the way in which they were conducting their duty. Police investigation reports on all complaints alleging criminal behaviour by the police have to be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As in Great

Britain, the Police Complaints Board provides an independent element. All complaints must be referred to that board.
There is a misconception about the Bennett report of March 1979. Some people think that that report charged the RUC with torture. It did not show that the security forces had been guilty of systematic ill treatment of suspects. Indeed, it stated that the RLC, which today is a young, impartial force regaining the confidence of the minority, had been the object of a deliberate, sustained campaign of traducement. Bennett investigated 200 cases of alleged brutality and found only 15 instances in which suspects had sustained injuries which were not self-inflicted while in police custody. The papers relating to those cases have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I am the last hon. Member who would wish to criticise a fine police force, the Garda Siochana, but they can be pretty rough. Whenever there are allegations of police brutality in the Republic or in a European forum, the complaints somehow or other fall by the wayside and we hear no more about them. It is very different within the British jurisdiction.
My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to the Diplock courts and trial without jury. The reason for the absence of a jury is well known. In the Republic terrorists are tried by special tribunals, but there is more than one judge. My right hon. Friend should consider what the hon. Gentleman said.
All the verdicts delivered in the Diplock courts remain subject to review by the Northern Ireland Court of Criminal Appeal and presumably, in the end, by the House of Lords, and are subject to a twice-yearly legislative review such as we are having tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to judicial review and went back to 1974. In 1975, the Gardiner committee pointed out that
the law … in Northern Ireland gives greater protection to the accused than in most disturbed communities".
It went on to assert:
Where freedoms conflict, the state has a duty to protect those in need of protection.
I thought of the "inalienable rights" of the American Declaration of Independece:
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Life comes before liberty, and certainly before the pursuit of happiness, whatever that means precisely.
I have studied the document of the Cobden Trust, which has been sent to hon. Members, but I come to the same conclusion as my right hon. Friend: that we cannot at this time return to jury courts. This is not a piece of British ruthlessness; it arises from the circumstances which prevail in the whole island of Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, West and I took up the case of the late Giuseppe Conlan. When studying the file, I found it remarkable that it was said on his behalf that if he had been tried by a Diplock court the answer might have been different, because the judges in those courts have great experience of the sort of forensic evidence which in so many cases leads to the conviction of terrorist offenders.
Secondly, it was argued that, if there had been no jury in the case, Mr. Conlan might have fared better because the jury was part of a public which was then experiencing the shock and horror of Provo atrocities in England.
The hunger strike was discussed in Dublin by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. I find the communiqueé


disappointing in that Mr. Haughey failed to get off the fence and condemn the hunger strikers. I welcome the joint studies on international co-operation. I have argued in speeches and in articles in The Times and in The Irish Times for a still more intimate partnership than the present unique relationship, without prejudice to the national sovereignty either of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or of the Irish Republic. Such a concept of partnership has been given the felicitous acronym IONA—Islands of the North Atlantic.
I understand that the meeting at Dublin has in no way affected the constitutional positon of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that there is no question of a confederation between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. The starting point for cooperation in the islands is that there are two sovereign nations.
In the first Airey Neave memorial lecture on 3 March, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the enduring commitment of the Conservative and Unionist Party to the Union. She said:
No democratic country can voluntarily abandon its responsibilities in a part of its territory against the will of the majority of the population there. We do not intend to create any precedent of that kind.
In the words that she uttered to a larger audience—the conference of the Conservative and Unionist Party—she and we
stand rock firm for the Union.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: At this late stage, and because there are others who wish to speak, I shall try to be brief. It is difficult. I make the obvious complaint about the shortness of the debate and the lateness of the hour.
The Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear that I am disappointed that he has decided not to amend or reform the emergency provisions legislation. There are points of view other than those that have been expressed tonight. That is not to say that anyone in the House condones the heinous crimes and terrible acts of violence that we have heard about tonight from the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and the Secretary of State. No one could condone that sort of conduct or those crimes. Those who are seeking a peaceful political solution to the problem have no time for that sort of activity. But that is not to say that we necessarily agree with all those who have spoken this evening.
I am extremely disappointed that the Prime Minister has not seen fit to make a statement to the House about the meeting in Dublin. We are all concerned and interested in the meeting. It will be unfortunate, to say the least, if we read about the debate that has taken place in the Dail and then our Prime Minister has to refute the version given in that Assembly or to give her version. It would have been far better for all concerned, especially in the sensitive position in which we find ourselves, if she had made a statement, as would normally have been the case, when she returned from the meeting. I cannot understand why she is being so coy. I for one would have wished to congratulate her on the initiative and to welcome any progress that was made towards improvements coming about between the Government of the Republic and our

Government. I do not know whether that will entice her to say something—perhaps that is why she did not say anything—but it is perfectly true.
From the Labour side of the House, there have been many attempts to amend and reform this legislation. We tried to persuade all Governments to amend the emergency legislation, especially that which applies to the Six Counties. Those attempts had the support of prominent academics from both sides of the Irish Sea, of Amnesty International, of the British people and even of the Government's own appointed Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. They all supported, for good reasons, different attempts to amend or reform the Act. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) referred to "Ten Years On In Ireland". Further suggestions are contained in that publication. If I had time, I would debate them. There are six suggestions in that small book that merit serious consideration.
It is said that there are some inside and outside the House who have forgotten about the provisions contained in the Act. The serious attacks on civil liberties in the Act have become almost a permanent feature of the legislative process. That certainly applies in Northern Ireland, and there is a danger of a spill-over into our own legislation if we are not careful.
We should remind ourselves briefly of the provisions that we are discussing. They include three-day and seven-day security detention, permission for the security forces to arrest for questioning, provision for a judge to sit by himself in a court handling terrorist charges, the reversal of the burden of proof in respect of bail applications when the accused is charged with being in possession of proscribed articles, and the alteration of the rules on the admissibility of statements by accused persons. As Peter Taylor puts it in another excellent publication, that gave the green light for Castlereagh.
These are serious issues that we should not gloss over lightly by listing a catalogue of dramatic incidents. We should remind ourselves from time to time of the seriousness of the attacks on civil liberties that are inherent in the Act. The system of conviction that it permits is without precedent. All the normal procedures for arrest, interrogation, admissibility of confessions and jury trial have been abrogated in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State referred to terrorists. We hear the words "terrorists" and "terrorism" bandied about all over the place. Section 31 of the 1978 Act states:
'Terrorism' means the use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear.
It refers to political ends. It is significant that that is the definition.
Can we say that all the special procedures and the special courts, plus the special definition of the individual who commits the crime, may be set on one side and that the man who comes out at the end of it all is not also special? I heard no word of complaint when the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland introduced the special category status. It was accepted that there was something special. Since then we have erected a special legislative process to deal with it. We are being totally illogical if we now say that there is not something special. Of course, there are not many who will say that too loudly for fear of being accused of being on the side of the others. It is utter nonsense. We are being illogical until we discuss


the issue openly in a forum such as the Chamber. Until we do that, we will not begin to understand the form and nature of the protests.
Many of those who have gone through the special process—I am not talking of the more dramatic, terrible and awful crimes of which we have heard during the debate—might have been found not guilty in the normal courts of law. We read almost daily of cases in which there is doubt. Even among the strikers, there are one or two of whom it could be said that there would be doubts if they had followed the normal processes of the law.
We have, responsibility for erecting these special frontiers, and we introduced the special processes and categories in the first place. At this moment there are still 370 men, close by the men who are on hunger strike, who are still on special category status. They are guilty of exactly the same crimes to which we have referred this evening. They live in compounds, wear no uniform, do no work, associate freely and enjoy frequent visits, parcels and so on. If it is asked why this should be so, the reply is "Well, they committed their crimes on the clay before we decided that such people would be treated differently." A lot of people cannot understand the logic of the special processes, the special category and then a special cut-off date.
Such a system was bound to create anomalies, and it has done. I wish to quote from a letter which appeared in The Times on 5 December, written by Canon John Austin Baker, of Westminster Abbey. He said, in relation to this point:
We have not escaped the anomalies created by special category status simply by decreeing its abolition.
It is absolutely true that we have not done so We have to face up to this fact, particularly in the current situation. It is not just a question of having a discussion in a drawing room of the type we have had in the previous hour or so. We are facing probably the most tragic situation that has existed in Northern Ireland since the start of these present troubles. We should treat it by looking for solutions instead of patting each other on the back, saying how well we are doing.
It is in that vein that I hope we shall have another look; at this problem The letter in The Times made some other tailing points and is well worth reading. I hope that the Secretary of State will have had the chance of reading it and will refer to it. I would hate to do the canon an injustice by picking bits of the letter out of context rather than reading the whole of it. It is an extremely interesting and important letter. Others have spoken in the same vein.
The Guardian said in a leader on 1 December:
Is either side's avowal of principle a good enough cause for the deaths not only of the prisoners but of the many others who, it seems inevitable, will die in the resulting inter-sectarian terror? The question is not rhetorical. It may be that by taking a stand now the Government will make itself more credible in the ultimate defeat of the IRA, that instead of gaining prestige the IRA will lose it. But that is a large gamble. It seems more likely that even moderate opinion in the Irish Republic will be estranged, that the conditions of the hunger strikers will be misrepresented abroad, especially in the United States, and that a new generation of martyrs will succeed in setting back the peaceful evolution of the province and of Ireland by yet another decade.
That is a very important leading article. With that I would include the efforts of the cardinal archbishop of Armagh, who made very early attempts to try to find a humane solution and had discussions with the Secretary of Stale. We did not gel a report on those discussions. We read

some versions of them in some newspapers. I believe from what I have heard and what I know that he genuinely tried to find a solution that would avoid further bloodshed. I believe that the Government have a duty to protect all their citizens.
In the words of Canon Baker,
If charity to the few can protect the many from indiscriminate tragedies of community conflict, then a balanced moral judgment will show that charity.
I recommend that the Secretary of State has another think about this matter. I have written to him and to the Prime Minister suggesting that they ought to think seriously—[Interruption.] Far more seriously than some hon. Members below the Gangway on the Tory Benches. This is no laughing matter, and I say that particularly to those who come in to the Chamber at the last moment. The hon. Member would be far better—perhaps I would be far better not saying what I am thinking.
I have asked the Secretary of State to consider very seriously the appointment of a mediator in view of the intransigence of both sides in this case, to discuss the issue and try to find a solution that would take us out of what may well be the most tragic situation that we have faced for many years.
Because of the shortage of time, I cannot develop all the points that I wanted to make. However, for all these reasons, and because the Government still find it impossible to amend or reform the Act, I shall vote against its renewal tonight, as I have done on previous occasions. Perhaps on another occasion, in another debate held at an earlier hour, I shall be happy to give as many reasons as Government Members may desire.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) has been of service to the House by trying to clear up some of the confusion about the meaning of the words "political status". He has pointed out, correctly, that what we are concerned with is not political status—something that is not known in United Kingdom law—but a particular status granted to a certain number of people who were convicted of scheduled offences under the Act and of whom there are at present 300 or 400 still enjoying the privileges which were accorded to them, in my view wrongly, when the special status category was first brought into effect.
It therefore follows that what is aimed at is not political status as such—about which we know nothing, because it does not apply in the United Kingdom—but those privileges which are at present being enjoyed by these other prisoners who have been convicted of scheduled offences. It is important, when we are considering this matter and when publicity is given to it, to recognise that these people are not seeking to achieve anything new or different, or honourable or traditional. They are simply endeavouring to secure the continuance of something which was, rightly, taken away from all those convicted of scheduled offences in 1976.
There is, of course, a concept known to United Kingdom law which is of relevance to this type of case—that is, the concept of the political offence It is known to United Kingdom law and the law of extradition. A political offence is an offence which is incidental to violent disturbances where two or more parties are contending for power within a State. The general example


that is given in the case law on this subject is that of an offence committed in the course of an anti-Government demonstration.
It follows that it does not in any way in our law apply to the deliberate cold-blooded killing which goes on in Northern Ireland and which is committed by the people with whom we are dealing tonight. That sort of thing may occur in war; but political offences have no application to war. So there is simply no basis upon which any sort of political status could be granted to these people.
I wish that Ministers would not keep saying that they will not accord political status to these people. What they should be saying is "We shall not grant their demands for privileges for any of them so long as they maintain their refusal to abide by prison rules." All of them are at present in breach of those rules. As long as they are, there is no ground for making any concessions whatsoever.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: With the leave of the House, I shall try in the 10 minutes remaining to reply to the important points raised.
Perhaps I could start by taking up where my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) left off when he was commenting on what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) said. We must be quite clear about this. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there should be a mediator. That is what the Government are in business to do. We have made our position perfectly clear. On 4 December I answered at some length a question, which appears in Hansard, which made the Government's position absolutely clear and spelt out in considerable detail the regime in the prisons in Northern Ireland. If protesting prisoners conform to the rules, they will enjoy the same privileges as others. We spelt out exactly what that entailed in relation to the demands that they are making.
That is where we stand. I would not want the hon. Gentleman or the House to be under the impression that we are interested in finding a mediator to move between us and the prisoners to see whether we can come to an arrangement. We shall not do that. It is essential to make certain that everybody understands our position. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will allow me, I shall try to answer the question.
Everyone, including those taking part in the hunger strike, should be absolutely clear what the Government's position is. Therefore, I considered it right that all the prisoners' relatives and all those likely to advise them should be sent copies of the statement but that the prisoners should be personally informed of the Government's position by one of my officials accompanying the governor, who was there quite properly, so that they cannot say that they did not know. I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension.
May I deal with the point that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) made about Dublin before I deal with the two or three points concerning the Act? He asked three questions about the meeting between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in Dublin on Monday. The first was whether the Act that we are discussing tonight had been discussed between them. The answer is "No". It was not mentioned at any of the

meetings at which I was present. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether the hunger strike was mentioned. The answer is that it was. If he studies the communiqué, he will find that it states that my right hon. Friend and the Taoiseach discussed the matter and issued a joint statement about it.
The right hon. Gentleman then suggested that the phrase "possible new institutional structures" may cause security difficulties and that people may be uncertain about its meaning. He asked me to say a little about it. I am glad to do so. One purpose of the meeting was to see how to develop the unique relationship between our two countries that the two Heads of Government had mentioned when they last met in May. They decided that the right course was to set up a series of joint studies to see how the relationship could best be developed. [Interruption.] I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Down, South will allow me to make my own speech. I hope to cover the points that he raised
I cannot say precisely what ground the joint studies will cover, except that one will cover security. The matter requires further thought among ourselves and with the Government of the Republic.
The phrase is "institutional structures" and not "constitutional structures". We are not contemplating a federal structure, a confederation or anything like that, diminishing the powers of the sovereign Governments. We are considering whether any new arrangements would be helpful to facilitate consultation at all levels—official, ministerial and even parliamentary.
Let us look at it this way. The meeting on Monday was one of a series, similar to those that my right hon. Friend has had with other countries with which we have close relations. That in itself is an institutional structure. They have made it so. It is quite reasonable. We have close cooperation on economic matters. Would it help to formalise that? I do not know yet. None of us knows, but it is exactly the sort of thing that I believe we should be looking at. However, as my right hon. Friend has made clear—it was mentioned that she had—there is no question of federation, confederation or anything of that kind. We are seeking ways of improving relations between the two countries, carrying forward matters of joint interest as efficiently as we can.
I come next to the Act. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North spoke of amending it and producing a whole range of matters in respect of which it could and possibly should be amended. He told the House that he does not like the Act and will vote against it. One must make an assessment about whether the Act should be continued. Is it generally working and being supported by the people to whom it applies? I think, as I have tried to show, that it is working and is generally supported. That is not to say that it should not be amended and that we should not constantly consider ways in which we ought to do that. I have undertaken that the Government will do so.
I was particularly interested in the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Mansfield about a judicial review, which follows the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) the last time we discussed this matter. We have given quite a lot of thought to the suggestion, and it will require an effort on the part of the Government to ensure that these emergency powers do not stay with us longer than they are needed.
There could well come a point at which it would be useful to have an independent judgment, with the impetus


that that would give. But that would assume, I believe, that it had come to be widely thought that the emergency powers no longer met the needs of the case and that pretty drastic reform in one direction or another was called for. An independent judical review could assess then whether that dissatisfaction was well founded and advise the Government on how best to change course. But that is far from the position today.
I think that I can claim that the Government's security policy is on the whole regarded as being the right one and that the emergency powers contained in the Act are what is generally regarded as being necessary to carry it out. If we were to institute an independent review now, that would raise false expectations, on the part both of those who would like to see the powers disappear and of those who feared that they might be dismantled too quickly. That would increase tensions, and this is no moment for doing that. It is an idea that I would prefer to keep in reserve. However, the right hon. Member for Mansfield has put it, forward formally on behalf of the Opposition, and I promise him that I shall pay great attention to what he says and consider it carefully.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) raised the question of the two assessors. It was, of course, considered by Lord Gardiner in his review. He dismissed it on the ground that they would be subject to the same pressures as the jury. However, I note that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it and I shall look at it again.
What matters tonight is that we should pass the order. I hope that the message will go out, as I believe it does from almost everybody who has spoken, first, that we all abhor violence, second, that we do not recognise a political motive for violence as being valid and, third, that we shall give every support that we can to the security forces, who are doing their utmost on our behalf to overcome the terrorism under which Northern Ireland has lived for too long. I hope that the House will support the order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 21.

Division No. 16]
[12.58 am


AYES


Alison, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Arnold, Tom
Goodhart, Philip


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Gorst, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hawkins, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawksley, Warren


Blackburn, John
Heddle, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bradford, Rev R.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bright, Graham
Lang, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Latham, Michael


Brown, M.(Brigg and Scun)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Buck, Antony
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McCusker, H.


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
MacGregor, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Colvin, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McQuade, John


Cope, John
McQuarrie, Albert


Costain, Sir Albert
Major, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Marlow, Tony


Dover, Denshore
Mates, Michael


Dunlop, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Moate, Roger


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Molyneaux, James


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)





Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Squire, Robin


Myles, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Martin


Newton, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Tebbit, Norman


Parris, Matthew
Thompson, Donald


Pendry, Tom
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Penhaligon, David
Wakeham, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Waller, Gary


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Watson, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, Bowen


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Wheeler, John


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Whitney, Raymond


Rossi, Hugh
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Carol Mather and


Speller, Tony
Mr. David Waddington


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)





NOES


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cryer, Bob
Mikardo, Ian


Dalyell, Tam
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Parry, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Dubs, Alfred
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Fitt, Gerard
Stallard, A. W.


Flannery, Martin
Tilley, John


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)



McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tellers for the Noes:


McKelvey, William
Mr. Clive Soley and


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett


Maxton, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved.
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 3 December, be approved.

Gibraltar

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. Michael Latham: This debate arises out of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit which I was fortunate enough to make at the beginning of October, in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). They are unable to attend tonight, for very good reasons which they have explained to me, but I should like to place on record their great interest in the subject of Gibraltar. I hope that we shall hear during the debate—if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), who knows the Rock intimately and lived there for six and a half years.
Our CPA trip was led by a very distinguished Labour peer, Lord Hughes. We met senior representatives of all shades of political opinion in Gibraltar and also of commerce and the trade unions. I should like to place on record our deep gratitude for the exceptional warmth and hospitality with which we were received and welcomed both by Gibraltarians and by His Excellency the Governor and representatives of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Since our return, we have met my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and I have corresponded with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
I want to deal first with the Lisbon agreement reached on 10 April 1980 by the British Foreign Secretary and the then Spanish Foreign Minister. The House will be aware that Gibraltar has been under seige by Spain since 1969. Agreement or no agreement, that siege continues. Except for the restoration of telephone communications, Spain has taken little action to improve relations in the light of the agreement. The frontier remains closed. But the spirit of Gibraltarians remains high, although obviously over the years the siege has had adverse effects on the local economy. In that regard, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us when the review document on the future of Gibraltar's commercial port will become available, and that he will be able to assure us that Ministers will view sympathetically the need to give any reasonable assistance.
Gibraltar, of course, is also an important naval base. I hope that my hon. Friend will reiterate its immense value to NATO as a base for tracking and destroying any enemy submarines or warships that might break out of the Mediterranean into the Atlantic to threaten NATO's essential communications. In that regard, we found the defence arrangements of the airfield less than up to date. While, obviously, the anti-aircraft troop of the Gibraltar Regiment is in excellent body of men, it is surely not very satisfactory that this vital Rock, from which Eisenhower planned and launched Operation Torch and which contains today many essential supplies, should be defended by obselete L40/70 Bofors guns. Surely Rapier missiles should be installed there as resources permit. I raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in a parliamentary question on 2 December and I was disappointed by his negative reply.
I turn now to the question of sovereignty. I cannot accept that there is ipso facto a Gibraltar problem. There may be a Spanish problem, but there is no doubt that Gibraltar is and remains British. Its 20,000 Gibraltarian inhabitants, who are not and have never been Spanish or of Spanish descent, are fiercely loyal to Britain and to the person of Her Majesty the Queen. I hope, therefore, that Ministers will take every possible step to reassure and support these devoted subjects of Her Majesty.
Let it be understood beyond all possible doubt that there is absolutely no support at all in Gibraltar for Spanish sovereignty. The 1967 referendum, with a 96 per cent, poll, showed 12,138 people wishing to remain British and 44 voting for Spain. All shades of opinion in Gibraltar expressed the view to us that an identical result would be obtained today, except that Spain might not get 44 votes. Why should it, after 11 years of siege?
Let it also be understood that Gibraltarians are not all screaming for the opening of the frontier. Indeed, some of varying shades of political opinion expressed the view to us that they would sooner it stayed closed than that it was opened as part of a negotiation over sovereignty.
I suggest that there can be no negotiation over sovereignty. Under article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht, it is plain that Gibraltar cannot become independent. It can either remain British or it can become Spanish. Since Gibraltarians do not wish to become Spanish, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary will say clearly and unequivocally tonight that Her Majesty's Government

stand firm as the Rock itself—and note that that is a saying in our language—behind the right of the people of Gibraltar to remain British as long they so desire.
I believe that my hon. Friend should go further. He should make it plain that there can be no question of Spain joining the EEC as long as it besieges Gibraltar. That is an impossible barrier to Spanish membership. Further, even if Spain implements the Lisbon agreement, which she has signed, but which has not so far progressed to any significant degree, the issue of sovereignty against the wishes of the Gibraltarians should not be negotiable, either as part of an EEC deal or for any other purpose. That is what Gibraltarians want to hear, and I hope that they will hear it tonight.
I turn now to a difficult matter relating to citizenship and immigration. I realise that I cannot use an Adjournment debate to press for legislative changes. That is easy for me, because I do not want any legislative changes. The present arrangements are eminently satisfactory. Under the arrangements announced by Mr. George Thomson in 1968, the 20,000 Gibraltarians—we must remember that there are also 10,000 Gibraltarians living in Britain, because many families were evacuted here during the war while their menfolk fought for us in our Armed Forces—are not subject to any form of immigration control or any restrictions on their residence or employment here. That is as it should be. Gibraltar is our only European colony. It is part of the Common Market as a territory in Europe for whose external relations Britain is responsible under article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome.
When Britain joined the EEC, it declared that all United Kingdom citizens, whether by birth or by registration or naturalisation in Gibraltar, were British nationals for the purpose of the Treaty. No other dependent territory was treated in that way. A Gibraltarian is defined on his passport as
a United Kingdom national for Community purposes".
Even Channel Islanders or Manxmen do not qualify for that.
I hope that my hon. Friend will do his best to ensure that these highly satisfactory arrangements continue. I must not, and will not, mention any possible or impending legislation, because I should be out of order, but I can say that the Gibraltarians are, and think of themselves as, British citizens, and that is the way it should remain. To recoin an old phrase which is familiar to my hon. Friend and important to Conservatives,
If change is not better, it were better not to change".
I am not happy with the reply that I received from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday in answer to a parliamentary question on this subject. My right hon. Friend said:
The Government have received a memorandum signed by leaders of the political parties and by others in Gibraltar. In addition, about 10 letters from private individuals have been received. The Government have said in reply to the memorandum that the feelings of people in Gibraltar are well understood and that their requests will be carefully studied."—[Official Report, 9 December, 1980; Vol. 995, c. 550–51.]
I would have preferred it if my right hon. Friend had said "a memorandum signed by leaders of all members of the House of Assembly in Gibraltar and all representative organisations in the colony", and if she had added that "the feelings of all the people of Gibraltar are well understood" rather than
the feelings of people in Gibraltar are well understood".


There is an important difference.
I look to my hon. Friend to repeat the Thomson assurances tonight and also to make it plain that they are not solely linked to the closed frontier. These vital concessions must not be allowed to lapse if the frontier reopens. I am sure that my hon. Friend would regard it as totally intolerable if Spain were to join the EEC but Gibraltarians became newly subject to immigration control into the United Kingdom. Such a situation could mean that oar only European dependency, linked with us in the EEC, with its unique constitutional circumstances under article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht, and with its exceptional loyalties to Britain, would be treated worse from the point of view of immigration into Britain than Spain, Germany, France or Belgium. I do not believe that there would be a majority in this House for such a deplorable proposition, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to reassure our loyal and devoted friends in the colony in this regard.
I stress to my hon. Friend the need to lift and sustain the morale of those in Gibraltar. I believe that it would be a considerable morale booster and a tribute to the steadfastness of Britain towards the colony if it were possible for an early visit to be paid to Gibraltar by either th'5 Lord Privy Seal or the Foreign Secretary, because it would allow local opinion to be made known to him direct. I hope that this point will be seriously considered by my hen. Friend. I make that proposal in full awareness of the importance of it. I commend this proposal and the future of the people of the Rock to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) in speaking on the important subject of Gibraltar. As he indicated, I had the pleasure of living in. Gibraltar for six and a half years and had the opportunity of witnessing the siege that reigned between Spain and Gibraltar.
I can confirm that the people of Gibraltar wish to ret lain British subjects. Over the years they have come to think of themselves as British citizens. In recent times there was an organisation called the Integration with Britain Party. Unfortunately, it fell by the wayside, but it was interested in having total integration with Britain and in ensuring diet Gibraltar had a common purpose with this country. That was commendable inasmuch as these people, who for many years had thought of themselves as Britons, did not want to feel that they would become Spanish.
As my hon. Friend said, under the terms of the Lisbon agreement, the Spanish Government said that they would open the bolder. They did not open the border on 3 June as they agreed That is a sad reflection on the land of agreement that one would have expected from the Spanish authorities. The Gibraltarians would have welcomed the opening of the border without restriction.
There is no question of the sovereignty of Gibraltar being removed from the Gibraltarians to Spanish soil. Gibraltar cannot be independent. When the Treaty of Utrecht was entered into, it was agreed that the only place to which Gibraltar would be removed would be Spain. The Gibraltarians have no desire that that should happen. Gibraltar is the only dependent territory that we have left, and its people are entitled to ask the British Government

to support their demand to remain British. Any question of a change of mode, habitation or sovereignty should remain with them in a British context.
I conclude on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Melton made on the nationality laws. I am not preempting a subject that will be discussed in the House later. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must give careful consideration to his decision on the Gibraltarians. They must not be regarded as third-class citizens of the United Kingdom. They must have the right to remain United Kingdom citizens, as they have been since we took over the Rock when we defeated the Spaniards in 1703.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I welcome the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) to discuss Gibraltar. It is certainly good to know that many hon. Members are interested in and concerned about Gibraltar. I appreciated listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), who has considerable knowledge of Gibraltar.
The visit to Gibraltar in early October by the delegation from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association was particularly welcome and gave three hon. Members the chance to see something of the people of Gibraltar, who are such close friends of ours, and to see at first hand the situation there.
It is some time since we had such a discussion, and the timing of this debate is particularly good. It is almost eight months since my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal informed the House on 14 April of the conclusion in Lisbon of the Anglo-Spanish agreement on Gibraltar. At that time hopes were high, and we looked forward to the early restoration of direct communications between Gibraltar and Spain.
The long delay over implementing the agreement is disappointing. However, the House as a whole has, I know, admired the patience and fortitude with which the people of Gibraltar have lived with a closed frontier and all the inconveniences which that causes. They have prospered as a community in difficult circumstances. That is in itself a testament to their resourcefulness and skills.
The ties between ourselves and the Gibraltarians are close. There is no doubt about their strength and durability. I stress that there is absolutely no need for concern about sovereignty. My hon. Friend made an excellent speech on the importance of our ties with Gibraltar. I emphasise that the British commitment is crystal clear. As my hon. Friend said, it is as solid as the Rock itself, and it is enshrined in the preamble to Gibraltar's constitution, which states:
Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.
That commitment is reaffirmed in the statement made in Lisbon on 10 April. I was anxious to respond immediately on that singularly important point.
My hon. Friend mentioned the subject of defence. There is no doubting the strategic importance of Gibraltar. It commands the entrance to the Mediterranean through which all seaborne reinforcements and supplies of the southern flank of NATO in time of tension or war would have to pass. In peace-time, the facilities of Gibraltar


enable the Alliance to keep the Straits under continual surveillance: one-third of NATO's oil supplies and some 2,000 ships a month pass through.
My hon. Friend raised a number of specialist points about the naval base and airfield defences at Gibraltar. I will, of course, draw his views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I can, however, assure him that the defences of Gibraltar are kept under regular review. He will, of course, be aware that proposals regarding specific weapons systems cannot be considered in isolation from our expenditure on defence as a whole. I should tell my hon. Friend—this is something that he probably knows—that there are no plans to install Rapier.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the port at Gibraltar. The review of the port was commissioned by the Gibraltar Government from consultants. It is to consider the prospects for Gibraltar as a commercial port. I understand that the review will be completed early in 1981. The British Government of course welcome the idea that Gibraltar's commercial port should be developed. We shall study the report with interest when it is made available. However, we do not think that it will be available until 1981.
My hon. Friend the Member for Melton mentioned the important Lisbon agreement. It is much to be regretted that the agreement has not been implemented and that the frontier remains closed. Sr Perez Llorca, the new Spanish Foreign Minister, reaffirmed his Government's commitment to that agreement when he met my right hon. and noble Friend in late September. At this stage I cannot give any indication of a likely date. All is ready on the British and Gibraltarian side—indeed, it has all been ready since June. The British gates will remain open, as they have always been. It is now up to the Spanish Government. I hope that they will realise that it is in Spain's interest, as well as in Gibraltar's and Britain's, that communications should be restored and confidence built up.
The Lisbon agreement was to start negotiations aimed at overcoming all the differences between the British and Spanish Governments on Gibraltar and to re-establish direct communications in the region. We shall certainly not start negotiations while the frontiers are closed.
My hon. Friend mentioned sovereignty. At the beginning of my speech I sought to give him the total reassurance that he requires. The agreement is aimed at overcoming all the differences between Britain and Spain on Gibraltar. One of the differences is the Spanish claim to Gibraltar, and it will not go away through shutting our eyes to it. What matters is the commitment to the people of Gibraltar. The British Government believe that this is the key. There can be no sovereignty change without the agreement of the people of Gibraltar. That is firmly enshrined in the Lisbon agreement.
My hon. Friends the Members for Melton and for Aberdeenshire, East spoke of a number of other matters. Spain's possible accession to the European Community was mentioned.
The Government support Spain's accession to the European Community. This is a matter of importance to Britain and all Europe as well as to Spain. I stress that we have made no formal link with the lifting of restrictions on Gibraltar. Restrictions should go and the border be reopened long before Spain joins the Community.
Both my hon. Friends raised important questions about citizenship. It would not be right for me to pre-empt the legislation, but let me try to clarify a complicated subject. The Government are well aware of the strong feelings in Gibraltar over the nationality issue. We have kept in close touch with opinion there. A detailed memorandum from leading Gibraltarians was recently received by my right hon. and noble Friend. It has been forwarded to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and will be carefully considered by him before a Bill is laid. It should be understood that the present rights of access to the United Kingdom for Gibraltarians will not be affected by the proposed new nationality legislation.
Gibraltar is part of the territory of the European Community. As United Kingdom nationals for European Community purposes—I use the technical term—Gibraltarians have free access to this country and all other Community countries to seek and take up work; and the families of workers already there may join them. I stress that this right will not be affected by the new British nationality legislation. I can assure my hon. Friends that there is no question of Spanish nationals having easier access to the United Kingdom than Gibraltarians.
The arrangements announced in Gibraltar by the then Commonwealth Secretary on 23 May 1968 have been substantially continued by successive Governments. They, too, will be unaffected by the new nationality Bill. Lord Thomson of Monifieth, the then Commonwealth Secretary, made clear in 1968 that these administrative arrangements were made in the context of Spanish restrictions, and the policy of successive Governments on this matter has not changed. We stand by that position.
My hon. Friend asked whether my noble Friend the Secretary of State or my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal might consider visiting Gibraltar. I shall draw that suggestion to the attention of my noble Friend, but I should remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal visited Gibraltar in July last year. If we thought that it would be a good idea, I am sure that it would be carefully considered.
I hope that I have covered the main points that my hon. Friend raised in this important debate. There is no doubting the strong and important links that exist between Gibraltar and this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Two o'clock.